Loading ToolBench
MCP Agent Implementation for Sequential Thinking with AI-powered routing using multi-thinking methodology and multi-agent systems
This server has severe definition quality issues. Of the 2 tools, only 1 is clearly visible in the source code with a schema. Tool naming is problematic: 'sequentialthinking' lacks a verb, and 'sequential-thinking' uses a hyphenated noun form rather than verb_noun. Descriptions exist but are vague and lack actionable guidance. The visible schema for 'sequentialthinking' has 8 parameters but no output schema is documented. Error handling is absent. The prompts feature is listed but no prompts are visible in the provided code. Overall, this server falls in the F-D range due to missing schemas, poor naming, vague descriptions, and no error guidance.
Enhanced starter prompt for sequential thinking with better formatting
Process sequential thinking with AI-powered routing and multi-thinking methodology
Tool 'sequentialthinking' does not start with a clear action verb. Name should be 'process_sequential_thinking' or 'run_sequential_thinking' to convey the action performed.
Tool 'sequential-thinking' uses hyphenated name with no verb and lacks a visible input schema in the provided source code. The schema score is 0 because no explicit parameter definitions are shown.
No output schema is documented for either tool. The 'sequentialthinking' tool has 8 input parameters but the response format is never specified. LLMs cannot plan downstream steps without knowing the output structure.
Tool descriptions are vague. 'Process sequential thinking with AI-powered routing and multi-thinking methodology' does not answer: what does this tool DO? When should the LLM call it instead of a similar tool? What are the prerequisites?
Inferred effective spec: 2025-06-18+.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 33 | 2025-06-18+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 42 | 1.21.1+ | v1 |
Parameter 'thought' (in 'sequentialthinking') lacks detail on expected format and length constraints. Is it a single sentence? Multi-paragraph? Max 2000 chars? Description only says 'The thought content to process'.
No error handling or recovery guidance. If the tool fails (e.g. invalid thoughtNumber or invalid branchFromThought reference), the server provides no actionable error message telling the LLM what to do next.
The 'branchFromThought' parameter has a minimum of 1 but no description of what 'branching' means in this context or when it should be used. Interdependent parameters ('isRevision' + 'branchFromThought') lack documented relationships.
Tool 'sequential-thinking' is listed with 2 parameters ('problem' and 'context') but no explicit schema is visible in the provided source code. This violates the rule: 'If tool definitions are inferred rather than directly visible, cap per-tool scores at 50.' The tool cannot be verified.