{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking","slug":"npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking","name":"@modelcontextprotocol/server-sequential-thinking","type":"mcp","url":"https://www.npmjs.com/package/@modelcontextprotocol/server-sequential-thinking","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.sequential.thinking.protocol.server","name":"sequential-thinking-protocol-server","description":"Implements a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that exposes sequential thinking as a standardized tool interface, allowing Claude and other MCP-compatible clients to invoke structured reasoning workflows through a bidirectional JSON-RPC protocol. The server registers thinking tools that clients can discover and call, with built-in support for streaming responses and tool result callbacks.","intents":["I want to give Claude access to a structured thinking tool that breaks down complex problems step-by-step","I need to integrate sequential reasoning into my MCP-compatible application without reimplementing the protocol","I want to expose thinking capabilities as discoverable tools that any MCP client can invoke"],"best_for":["developers building MCP-compatible applications that need reasoning capabilities","teams integrating Claude with custom tooling via the Model Context Protocol","builders creating AI agents that require structured problem decomposition"],"limitations":["Requires MCP client support — only works with applications that implement the MCP specification","Thinking output is streamed but not persisted by default — requires external logging for audit trails","No built-in rate limiting or token budgeting — clients must manage thinking depth constraints themselves"],"requires":["Node.js 16+ runtime","MCP-compatible client (Claude via Claude Desktop, or custom MCP client implementation)","@modelcontextprotocol/sdk package for MCP protocol implementation"],"input_types":["text (problem statement or query)","structured JSON (tool invocation parameters)"],"output_types":["text (streaming thinking output)","structured JSON (tool results with thinking metadata)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.thinking.tool.registration.and.discovery","name":"thinking-tool-registration-and-discovery","description":"Automatically registers thinking tools with the MCP server and exposes them through the standard MCP tools/list endpoint, allowing clients to discover available thinking capabilities via JSON-RPC introspection. Tools are defined with schemas that describe input parameters, output format, and thinking behavior, enabling clients to validate requests before invocation.","intents":["I want Claude to discover what thinking tools are available without hardcoding tool names","I need to define custom thinking workflows with specific parameters and validation rules","I want clients to understand the schema and constraints of thinking tools before calling them"],"best_for":["MCP server developers building extensible reasoning interfaces","teams that need dynamic tool discovery across multiple thinking implementations","applications requiring schema-driven tool validation"],"limitations":["Tool schemas are static at server startup — dynamic tool registration at runtime requires server restart","No built-in versioning for tool schemas — breaking changes require client-side compatibility handling","Schema validation is client-side responsibility — server does not enforce parameter constraints"],"requires":["MCP server implementation with tools/list endpoint support","JSON Schema definitions for tool parameters","MCP-compatible client that implements tool discovery"],"input_types":["JSON Schema (tool parameter definitions)","text (tool names and descriptions)"],"output_types":["JSON (MCP tools/list response with tool schemas)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_2","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.streaming.thinking.output.delivery","name":"streaming-thinking-output-delivery","description":"Streams thinking process output in real-time to MCP clients using JSON-RPC streaming responses, allowing clients to display intermediate reasoning steps as they are generated rather than waiting for complete computation. Implements buffering and flushing strategies to balance latency and throughput while maintaining protocol compliance.","intents":["I want to see Claude's thinking process unfold in real-time rather than waiting for the final answer","I need to stream long reasoning chains without blocking the client or exceeding message size limits","I want to display intermediate thinking steps in my UI as they are generated"],"best_for":["interactive applications requiring real-time reasoning visibility","UI builders that need to display thinking progress to end users","developers building streaming-aware MCP clients"],"limitations":["Streaming adds protocol overhead — each thinking step generates a separate JSON-RPC message","Client must handle out-of-order or partial messages if network conditions are poor","No built-in backpressure mechanism — fast thinking may overwhelm slow clients"],"requires":["MCP client with streaming response support","Network connection with low latency for real-time perception","Client-side buffering logic to reassemble streamed thinking chunks"],"input_types":["text (problem statement)"],"output_types":["text stream (thinking steps delivered incrementally via JSON-RPC)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_3","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.structured.thinking.workflow.execution","name":"structured-thinking-workflow-execution","description":"Executes multi-step thinking workflows that decompose problems into sequential reasoning phases (e.g., problem analysis, hypothesis generation, validation), with each phase receiving input from previous phases. Implements state threading through the workflow to maintain context and enable iterative refinement of reasoning.","intents":["I want to break down a complex problem into structured thinking phases that build on each other","I need to validate reasoning at intermediate steps before proceeding to the next phase","I want to implement custom thinking workflows with specific phase ordering and dependencies"],"best_for":["developers building multi-step reasoning agents","teams implementing domain-specific thinking workflows (e.g., code review, design analysis)","applications requiring validated reasoning chains with checkpoints"],"limitations":["Workflow phases are sequential — no parallel reasoning branches or conditional branching","No built-in rollback or error recovery — failed phases require manual intervention or restart","Workflow definitions are code-based — no visual workflow builder or DSL support"],"requires":["MCP server implementation with workflow execution support","JavaScript/TypeScript runtime for phase implementation","Clear problem statement and phase definitions"],"input_types":["text (problem statement)","structured JSON (workflow configuration)"],"output_types":["text (thinking output from each phase)","structured JSON (workflow execution results with phase metadata)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_4","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.thinking.context.preservation.across.turns","name":"thinking-context-preservation-across-turns","description":"Maintains reasoning context across multiple MCP tool invocations within a single conversation, allowing subsequent thinking operations to reference and build upon previous reasoning steps. Implements context threading through tool parameters and results, enabling multi-turn reasoning without explicit context management by the client.","intents":["I want Claude to remember its previous reasoning when I ask a follow-up question","I need to refine or extend a reasoning chain based on new information without starting over","I want to maintain a coherent reasoning thread across multiple tool calls"],"best_for":["interactive reasoning applications with multi-turn conversations","debugging and problem-solving workflows that require iterative refinement","applications where reasoning context is expensive to recompute"],"limitations":["Context is limited by MCP message size constraints — very long reasoning chains may exceed protocol limits","No automatic context summarization — clients must manage context growth manually","Context is ephemeral — not persisted across server restarts without external storage"],"requires":["MCP client that maintains conversation state across tool invocations","Sufficient context window in the underlying LLM","Explicit context passing in tool parameters"],"input_types":["text (follow-up question or refinement)","structured JSON (previous thinking context)"],"output_types":["text (refined thinking output)","structured JSON (updated context with new reasoning)"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_5","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.thinking.depth.and.complexity.control","name":"thinking-depth-and-complexity-control","description":"Allows clients to specify thinking depth parameters (e.g., number of reasoning steps, time budget, complexity level) that constrain the scope and duration of thinking operations. Implements parameter validation and enforcement to prevent runaway thinking processes that exceed client-specified limits.","intents":["I want to limit how much thinking Claude does to control latency and token usage","I need to specify different thinking depths for different problem types (quick vs deep analysis)","I want to prevent thinking operations from consuming excessive resources"],"best_for":["cost-conscious applications that need to control token consumption","interactive applications requiring predictable latency","systems with resource constraints (e.g., edge deployments, rate-limited APIs)"],"limitations":["Depth parameters are hints, not hard guarantees — actual thinking duration may vary","No automatic complexity estimation — clients must manually tune depth parameters","Depth constraints may reduce reasoning quality for complex problems"],"requires":["MCP client that supports depth parameter specification","Clear understanding of problem complexity and appropriate depth levels","Monitoring to validate that depth constraints are effective"],"input_types":["structured JSON (depth parameters: max_steps, time_budget, complexity_level)"],"output_types":["text (thinking output constrained by depth parameters)","structured JSON (execution metadata including actual depth used)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_6","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.thinking.result.formatting.and.extraction","name":"thinking-result-formatting-and-extraction","description":"Transforms raw thinking output into structured formats (JSON, markdown, plain text) that clients can easily parse and integrate into their applications. Implements extraction logic to identify key insights, conclusions, and reasoning steps from unstructured thinking text, enabling downstream processing and analysis.","intents":["I want to extract the final answer from Claude's thinking output without parsing unstructured text","I need to convert thinking results into a structured format for storage or further processing","I want to highlight key reasoning steps and conclusions from the thinking process"],"best_for":["applications that need to process thinking results programmatically","systems that store or analyze reasoning chains","UI builders that need to display formatted thinking output"],"limitations":["Extraction heuristics may fail on unusual thinking patterns or edge cases","Formatting is lossy — some nuance from raw thinking may be lost in structured output","No custom formatting templates — output format is fixed by the server implementation"],"requires":["MCP client that can parse structured output formats","Clear understanding of expected output structure","Validation logic to handle malformed extraction results"],"input_types":["text (raw thinking output)"],"output_types":["JSON (structured thinking results with key insights)","markdown (formatted thinking with section headers)","plain text (cleaned thinking output)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_7","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.error.handling.and.thinking.failure.recovery","name":"error-handling-and-thinking-failure-recovery","description":"Implements error handling for thinking operations that fail or produce invalid results, with recovery strategies such as automatic retry, fallback to simpler reasoning, or graceful degradation. Provides detailed error messages and metadata to help clients diagnose thinking failures and adjust parameters.","intents":["I want to handle thinking failures gracefully without crashing my application","I need to understand why a thinking operation failed and how to fix it","I want automatic recovery mechanisms for transient thinking failures"],"best_for":["production applications requiring robust error handling","systems that need detailed failure diagnostics for debugging","applications with fallback reasoning strategies"],"limitations":["Automatic retry may increase latency and token consumption","Fallback strategies may produce lower-quality reasoning","Some thinking failures are unrecoverable and require manual intervention"],"requires":["MCP client with error handling logic","Clear definition of acceptable fallback behavior","Monitoring and logging for failure analysis"],"input_types":["text (problem statement)"],"output_types":["JSON (error response with error code, message, and recovery suggestions)","text (fallback reasoning output if recovery succeeds)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_8","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.thinking.audit.logging.and.observability","name":"thinking-audit-logging-and-observability","description":"Records detailed logs of thinking operations including input, output, execution time, token usage, and reasoning steps, enabling post-hoc analysis and debugging of reasoning workflows. Implements structured logging that integrates with standard observability tools (e.g., OpenTelemetry, Datadog) for monitoring thinking performance and quality.","intents":["I want to audit and review the reasoning process for compliance or quality assurance","I need to monitor thinking performance metrics (latency, token usage) across my application","I want to debug reasoning failures by examining detailed execution logs"],"best_for":["regulated industries requiring reasoning audit trails","teams optimizing thinking performance and cost","applications with SLA requirements for reasoning quality"],"limitations":["Logging adds overhead — detailed logging may increase latency by 10-20%","Log storage can be expensive for high-volume thinking operations","Sensitive reasoning content may require encryption or redaction in logs"],"requires":["External logging infrastructure (e.g., ELK, Datadog, CloudWatch)","Structured logging configuration in the MCP server","Log retention and analysis tools"],"input_types":["text (thinking operation metadata)"],"output_types":["JSON (structured logs with thinking details)","metrics (latency, token usage, success rate)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking__cap_9","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.multi.client.thinking.coordination","name":"multi-client-thinking-coordination","description":"Enables multiple MCP clients to coordinate thinking operations through a shared MCP server, allowing clients to share reasoning results, reference each other's thinking, and collaborate on complex problem-solving. Implements client isolation and conflict resolution to prevent interference between concurrent thinking operations.","intents":["I want multiple AI agents to collaborate on a complex problem by sharing reasoning","I need to coordinate thinking across different applications or services","I want to reuse reasoning results from one client in another client's thinking"],"best_for":["multi-agent systems requiring reasoning coordination","teams building collaborative AI applications","systems that benefit from shared reasoning across multiple clients"],"limitations":["Coordination adds complexity and potential latency — clients must wait for shared reasoning","No built-in conflict resolution — clients must handle reasoning disagreements manually","Shared state requires careful synchronization to prevent race conditions"],"requires":["Multiple MCP clients connected to the same server","Shared state management (e.g., database, cache) for reasoning results","Coordination protocol or convention between clients"],"input_types":["text (problem statement)","structured JSON (reference to other clients' reasoning)"],"output_types":["text (coordinated thinking output)","structured JSON (reasoning with references to other clients' results)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":25,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Node.js 16+ runtime","MCP-compatible client (Claude via Claude Desktop, or custom MCP client implementation)","@modelcontextprotocol/sdk package for MCP protocol implementation","MCP server implementation with tools/list endpoint support","JSON Schema definitions for tool parameters","MCP-compatible client that implements tool discovery","MCP client with streaming response support","Network connection with low latency for real-time perception","Client-side buffering logic to reassemble streamed thinking chunks","MCP server implementation with workflow execution support"],"failure_modes":["Requires MCP client support — only works with applications that implement the MCP specification","Thinking output is streamed but not persisted by default — requires external logging for audit trails","No built-in rate limiting or token budgeting — clients must manage thinking depth constraints themselves","Tool schemas are static at server startup — dynamic tool registration at runtime requires server restart","No built-in versioning for tool schemas — breaking changes require client-side compatibility handling","Schema validation is client-side responsibility — server does not enforce parameter constraints","Streaming adds protocol overhead — each thinking step generates a separate JSON-RPC message","Client must handle out-of-order or partial messages if network conditions are poor","No built-in backpressure mechanism — fast thinking may overwhelm slow clients","Workflow phases are sequential — no parallel reasoning branches or conditional branching","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.3,"ecosystem":0.3,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.52,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:23.904Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:23:35.094Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking"}},"signature":"wJDS5B+Ed9bXaeBRbYXQVrLd5Z14XjXJAzKt7A8TV/Zq//b8CWoG75417AnX+ZlXpToTGDpiGfNx+NW71yH2CQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T14:04:21.440Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=npm-modelcontextprotocolserver-sequential-thinking","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}