구조화된 사고 과정을 통해 역동적이고 성찰적인 문제 해결을 위한 도구를 제공하는 MCP 서버 구현입니다.
복잡한 문제를 관리 가능한 단계로 분해하세요
이해가 깊어짐에 따라 생각을 수정하고 다듬으세요.
추론의 대안 경로로 분기하다
생각의 총 개수를 동적으로 조정합니다.
솔루션 가설 생성 및 검증
Related MCP server: Think MCP
문제 해결 및 분석을 위한 세부적이고 단계별 사고 과정을 촉진합니다.
입력:
thought (문자열): 현재 생각 단계
nextThoughtNeeded (부울): 다른 사고 단계가 필요한지 여부
thoughtNumber (정수): 현재 생각 번호
totalThoughts (정수): 필요한 총 생각 수 추정
isRevision (부울, 선택 사항): 이것이 이전 생각을 수정하는지 여부
revisesThought (정수, 선택 사항): 어떤 생각이 재고려되고 있는가
branchFromThought (정수, 선택 사항): 분기점 생각 번호
branchId (문자열, 선택 사항): 지점 식별자
needsMoreThoughts (부울, 선택 사항): 더 많은 생각이 필요한 경우
순차적 사고 도구는 다음을 위해 설계되었습니다.
복잡한 문제를 단계별로 분해
수정의 여지를 둔 계획 및 설계
진로 수정이 필요할 수 있는 분석
전체 범위가 처음에는 명확하지 않을 수 있는 문제
여러 단계에 걸쳐 컨텍스트를 유지해야 하는 작업
관련 없는 정보를 필터링해야 하는 상황
claude_desktop_config.json 에 다음을 추가하세요:
지엑스피1
{
"mcpServers": {
"sequentialthinking": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"--rm",
"-i",
"mcp/sequentialthinking"
]
}
}
}도커:
docker build -t mcp/sequentialthinking -f src/sequentialthinking/Dockerfile .이 MCP 서버는 MIT 라이선스에 따라 라이선스가 부여됩니다. 즉, MIT 라이선스의 조건에 따라 소프트웨어를 자유롭게 사용, 수정 및 배포할 수 있습니다. 자세한 내용은 프로젝트 저장소의 LICENSE 파일을 참조하세요.
A detailed tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts. This tool helps analyze problems through a flexible thinking process that can adapt and evolve. Each thought can build on, question, or revise previous insights as understanding deepens.
When to use this tool:
Breaking down complex problems into steps
Planning and design with room for revision
Analysis that might need course correction
Problems where the full scope might not be clear initially
Problems that require a multi-step solution
Tasks that need to maintain context over multiple steps
Situations where irrelevant information needs to be filtered out
Key features:
You can adjust total_thoughts up or down as you progress
You can question or revise previous thoughts
You can add more thoughts even after reaching what seemed like the end
You can express uncertainty and explore alternative approaches
Not every thought needs to build linearly - you can branch or backtrack
Generates a solution hypothesis
Verifies the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps
Repeats the process until satisfied
Provides a correct answer
Parameters explained:
thought: Your current thinking step, which can include:
Regular analytical steps
Revisions of previous thoughts
Questions about previous decisions
Realizations about needing more analysis
Changes in approach
Hypothesis generation
Hypothesis verification
next_thought_needed: True if you need more thinking, even if at what seemed like the end
thought_number: Current number in sequence (can go beyond initial total if needed)
total_thoughts: Current estimate of thoughts needed (can be adjusted up/down)
is_revision: A boolean indicating if this thought revises previous thinking
revises_thought: If is_revision is true, which thought number is being reconsidered
branch_from_thought: If branching, which thought number is the branching point
branch_id: Identifier for the current branch (if any)
needs_more_thoughts: If reaching end but realizing more thoughts needed
You should:
Start with an initial estimate of needed thoughts, but be ready to adjust
Feel free to question or revise previous thoughts
Don't hesitate to add more thoughts if needed, even at the "end"
Express uncertainty when present
Mark thoughts that revise previous thinking or branch into new paths
Ignore information that is irrelevant to the current step
Generate a solution hypothesis when appropriate
Verify the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps
Repeat the process until satisfied with the solution
Provide a single, ideally correct answer as the final output
Only set next_thought_needed to false when truly done and a satisfactory answer is reached
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thought | Yes | Your current thinking step | |
| nextThoughtNeeded | Yes | Whether another thought step is needed | |
| thoughtNumber | Yes | Current thought number | |
| totalThoughts | Yes | Estimated total thoughts needed | |
| isRevision | No | Whether this revises previous thinking | |
| revisesThought | No | Which thought is being reconsidered | |
| branchFromThought | No | Branching point thought number | |
| branchId | No | Branch identifier | |
| needsMoreThoughts | No | If more thoughts are needed |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits. It explains the iterative, revisable nature of the process ('adjust total_thoughts up or down', 'question or revise previous thoughts'), the ability to branch or backtrack, and the workflow involving hypothesis generation and verification until satisfaction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively long (over 500 words) and not front-loaded. It includes redundant sections (e.g., 'Key features' and 'You should' lists overlap), and verbose explanations that could be condensed. Many sentences do not earn their place, reducing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics thoroughly. However, it lacks explicit information on output format or error handling, and the verbosity hinders effectiveness, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter semantics beyond the schema: it details what 'thought' can include (e.g., 'Revisions of previous thoughts', 'Hypothesis generation'), clarifies the purpose of 'next_thought_needed' and 'needs_more_thoughts', and provides context for revision and branching parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts' and 'analyze problems through a flexible thinking process'. It specifies the verb ('analyze', 'problem-solving') and resource ('problems'), but lacks sibling tools for differentiation, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit 'When to use this tool' with 7 specific scenarios (e.g., 'Breaking down complex problems into steps', 'Problems where the full scope might not be clear initially'). It also includes 11 'You should' guidelines that detail when and how to apply the tool effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
sequentialthinkingWith only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as a dynamic problem-solving process, making it distinct by default.
A single tool inherently has consistent naming, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'sequentialthinking' is descriptive and follows a clear, albeit unique, pattern for this server.
One tool is too few for a server that aims to facilitate dynamic and reflective problem-solving, as it forces all functionality into a single, complex interface. This limits flexibility and could overwhelm users or agents with its many parameters, making it feel thin in scope despite its depth.
The tool covers a broad range of problem-solving steps, but as a single tool, it lacks modularity. There are no obvious gaps in functionality, but the monolithic design might lead to dead ends or inefficiencies in handling diverse tasks that could benefit from separate, specialized tools.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Breaks a hard question or decision into checkable sub-questions, grounds each to a real tool.
Shared reasoning for unresolved, disputed, multi-step, provenance-sensitive problems across agents.
Deterministic reasoning stack for AI agents: simulate, decide & compute, plus cross-domain tools.
Break down complex problems into clear, actionable steps. Adapt on the fly by iterating, revising,…
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zalab-inc/mcp-sequentialthinking'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server