A specialized adaptation of the sequential thinking server that guides LLMs through structured QA processes, breaking down verification tasks into logical steps. It supports dynamic and reflective problem-solving through features like step-by-step progression, revision of previous thoughts, and branching into alternative lines of reasoning. The tool recommends appropriate tools for each step.
- Maintains the core sequential thinking approach (steps, total thoughts)
- Incorporates revision and branching logic to support non-linear problem-solving
- Specializes in breaking down QA/verification tasks
- Tracks progress through verification workflows, including branches and revisions
- Suggests appropriate verification tools for each step
- Provides confidence scores for tool recommendations
- Explains rationale for suggested tools
- Offers alternative tools when appropriate
- Recommendations are based on the current step, verification target, and potentially the nature of the thought (sequential, revision, branch)
- Tool recommendations are filtered or prioritized based on the list of tools available to the calling LLM.
- Pre-defined verification workflows for common scenarios (e.g., version, syntax, compatibility, test)
- Customizable templates for different types of projects
- Workflows can define conditions that lead to revisions or branches
- Special focus on version compatibility checks
interface SequentialThinkingQAParams {
// The current thinking step in the QA process
thought: string;
// Whether another thought step is needed
next_thought_needed: boolean;
// Current thought number
thought_number: number;
// Estimated total thoughts needed
total_thoughts: number;
// Optional: Whether this revises previous thinking
is_revision?: boolean;
// Optional: Which thought is being reconsidered (used with is_revision)
revises_thought?: number;
// Optional: Branching point thought number (used with branch_id)
branch_from_thought?: number;
// Optional: Branch identifier (used with branch_from_thought)
branch_id?: string;
// Optional: If more thoughts are needed (can override total_thoughts)
needs_more_thoughts?: boolean;
// Optional: What's being verified (code, config, etc.)
verification_target?: string;
// Optional: List of tool names available to the calling LLM
available_client_tools?: string[];
// Optional: Current step details
current_step?: {
step_description: string;
expected_outcome: string;
recommended_tools: Array<{
tool_name: string;
confidence: number;
rationale: string;
priority: number;
alternatives?: string[]; // Added alternatives based on analysis
suggested_inputs?: Record<string, unknown>; // Added suggested_inputs
}>;
next_step_conditions: string[];
};
// Optional: Previous verification steps (using StepRecommendation interface)
previous_steps?: Array<StepRecommendation>; // Updated type
// Optional: Remaining verification steps
remaining_steps?: Array<string>;
}
// Added interface for StepRecommendation based on types.ts
interface StepRecommendation {
step_description: string;
expected_outcome: string;
recommended_tools: Array<{
tool_name: string;
confidence: number;
rationale: string;
priority: number;
alternatives?: string[];
suggested_inputs?: Record<string, unknown>;
}>;
next_step_conditions: string[];
}For the Tailwind CSS v3 vs v4 example:
-
Initial Assessment:
{ "thought": "Need to verify Tailwind CSS version before implementing configuration", "current_step": { "step_description": "Check installed Tailwind version in package.json", "expected_outcome": "Confirmed Tailwind version", "recommended_tools": [ { "tool_name": "read_file", "confidence": 0.9, "rationale": "Examine package.json to determine installed version", "priority": 1 }, { "tool_name": "execute_command", "confidence": 0.7, "rationale": "Run npm list or similar command to check installed version", "priority": 2, "alternatives": [ "execute_command (yarn list)", "execute_command (pnpm list)" ] } ], "next_step_conditions": [ "Version identified", "Check for breaking changes between versions" ] }, "thought_number": 1, "total_thoughts": 4, "next_thought_needed": true, "verification_target": "Tailwind CSS version" } -
Documentation Check:
{ "thought": "Need to check official documentation for the identified Tailwind version", "current_step": { "step_description": "Retrieve current Tailwind configuration approach from docs", "expected_outcome": "Understanding of correct configuration pattern", "recommended_tools": [ { "tool_name": "browser_navigate", "confidence": 0.9, "rationale": "Navigate to official Tailwind documentation", "priority": 1, "suggested_inputs": { "url": "https://tailwindcss.com/docs" } }, { "tool_name": "browser_action", "confidence": 0.8, "rationale": "Browse documentation site to find relevant sections", "priority": 2 }, { "tool_name": "use_mcp_tool", "confidence": 0.7, "rationale": "Use a search tool (like Brave or Kagi) to find specific documentation pages", "priority": 3, "alternatives": [ "mcp-omnisearch:brave_search", "mcp-omnisearch:kagi_search" ], "suggested_inputs": { "server_name": "mcp-omnisearch", "tool_name": "brave_search", "arguments": { "query": "Tailwind CSS v4 configuration" } } } ], "next_step_conditions": [ "Configuration approach identified", "Breaking changes noted" ] }, "thought_number": 2, "total_thoughts": 4, "next_thought_needed": true, "verification_target": "Tailwind CSS configuration" } -
Implementation Planning:
{ "thought": "Plan implementation based on correct version information", "current_step": { "step_description": "Design configuration approach for Tailwind v4", "expected_outcome": "Version-appropriate implementation plan", "recommended_tools": [ { "tool_name": "write_to_file", "confidence": 0.8, "rationale": "Create appropriate configuration file (e.g., tailwind.config.js)", "priority": 1, "suggested_inputs": { "path": "tailwind.config.js", "content": "// Initial Tailwind config" } }, { "tool_name": "replace_in_file", "confidence": 0.7, "rationale": "Update existing configuration files if they exist", "priority": 2 } ], "next_step_conditions": [ "Configuration designed", "Ready for validation" ] }, "thought_number": 3, "total_thoughts": 4, "next_thought_needed": true, "verification_target": "Tailwind CSS configuration implementation" } -
Validation:
{ "thought": "Validate the implementation works with installed version", "current_step": { "step_description": "Test configuration with installed Tailwind version", "expected_outcome": "Confirmed working configuration", "recommended_tools": [ { "tool_name": "execute_command", "confidence": 0.9, "rationale": "Run build process or development server to verify configuration", "priority": 1, "suggested_inputs": { "command": "npm run build", "requires_approval": false } }, { "tool_name": "browser_action", "confidence": 0.7, "rationale": "Visually verify styles are applied correctly in a browser", "priority": 2 } ], "next_step_conditions": [] }, "thought_number": 4, "total_thoughts": 4, "next_thought_needed": false, "verification_target": "Tailwind CSS configuration validation" }
Example of Revision/Branching in a Workflow:
Imagine after Step 4 (Validation), the build fails due to a syntax error. The workflow could respond with:
{
"thought": "Build failed due to syntax error. Revising implementation step.",
"is_revision": true,
"revises_thought": 3, // Revising the Implementation Planning step
"current_step": {
"step_description": "Revise Tailwind configuration implementation to fix syntax errors.",
"expected_outcome": "Syntax errors resolved in configuration files.",
"recommended_tools": [
{
"tool_name": "read_file",
"confidence": 0.9,
"rationale": "Examine the build output or linter errors to identify the syntax issue.",
"priority": 1
},
{
"tool_name": "replace_in_file",
"confidence": 0.9,
"rationale": "Correct the syntax errors in the configuration file.",
"priority": 1
}
],
"next_step_conditions": [
"Syntax errors corrected",
"Ready to re-validate"
]
},
"thought_number": 5, // This is the 5th thought overall
"total_thoughts": 5, // Total thoughts might be adjusted
"next_thought_needed": true,
"verification_target": "Tailwind CSS configuration syntax"
}Or, if during Step 2 (Documentation Check), multiple valid configuration approaches are found, the workflow could suggest branching:
{
"thought": "Multiple configuration approaches found. Branching to explore alternative method.",
"branch_from_thought": 2, // Branching from the Documentation Check step
"branch_id": "alternative-config-1", // Unique ID for this branch
"current_step": {
"step_description": "Explore alternative Tailwind configuration approach.",
"expected_outcome": "Understanding of an alternative configuration method.",
"recommended_tools": [
{
"tool_name": "browser_navigate",
"confidence": 0.9,
"rationale": "Navigate to documentation for the alternative approach.",
"priority": 1
},
{
"tool_name": "read_file",
"confidence": 0.8,
"rationale": "Examine example files using the alternative approach.",
"priority": 2
}
],
"next_step_conditions": [
"Alternative approach understood",
"Ready to compare or implement"
]
},
"thought_number": 3, // This is the 3rd thought in this branch
"total_thoughts": 4, // Total thoughts for this branch
"next_thought_needed": true,
"verification_target": "Alternative Tailwind CSS configuration"
}- Maintain the same basic architecture based on the existing mcp-sequentialthinking-tools concepts.
- Adapt the tool recommendation logic for QA focus.
- Add QA-specific step templates.
- Implement logic in
src/server.tsand workflow files to handle and utilizeis_revision,revises_thought,branch_from_thought, andbranch_idparameters.
- Add version detection capabilities.
- Implement documentation checking workflows.
- Create validation step templates.
- Build confidence scoring specific to verification tasks.
- Ensure workflows can dynamically set revision and branching parameters based on step outcomes.
- Remove any direct recommendations or dependencies on
tavily_searchand update workflow recommendations to use alternative search/browser tools. - Update the tool recommendation logic to filter or prioritize
suggestions based on the
available_client_toolsparameter provided by the calling LLM.
mcp-sequentialthinking-qa/
├── src/
│ ├── index.ts // Main entry point (handles core thought processing, including revisions/branches)
│ ├── server.ts // MCP server implementation (routes to workflows, potentially handles revision/branch state)
│ ├── qa-workflows/ // QA workflow templates (implement workflow logic, set next step parameters including revision/branch)
│ │ ├── version-verification.ts
│ │ ├── syntax-validation.ts
│ │ └── compatibility-check.ts
│ │ └── test-workflow.ts // Added test workflow based on existing file
│ ├── tool-recommender/ // Tool recommendation logic (considers step type, revision/branch context, and available client tools)
│ │ ├── index.ts
│ │ ├── confidence-calculator.ts
│ │ └── rationale-generator.ts
│ ├── types.ts // TypeScript type definitions (updated to include available_client_tools)
│ └── schema.ts // Zod schema definitions (updated to include available_client_tools)
├── package.json
└── tsconfig.json
- Refine the existing QA workflow templates
(
version-verification.ts,syntax-validation.ts,compatibility-check.ts,test-workflow.ts) to incorporate logic for suggesting revisions and branches based on potential outcomes (e.g., errors, multiple options). - Update the
src/server.tsor core processing logic to correctly manage the state of revisions and branches in the thought history. - Ensure the tool recommendation logic considers whether the current step is a revision or part of a branch when suggesting tools, and filters/prioritizes based on available client tools.
- Remove any remaining references to
tavily_searchin the codebase and update workflow recommendations to use alternative search/browser tools. - Update
src/schema.tsandsrc/types.tsto include theavailable_client_toolsparameter in theSequentialThinkingQAParamsinterface/schema. - Test the revised workflows with scenarios that require revisions or branching.
- Document usage patterns for LLMs, specifically explaining how to interpret and utilize the revision and branching parameters, and how to provide the list of available tools.