Skip to main content
Glama
SovranAMR

ultraextramoregeniusthinking

by SovranAMR
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Ultra Extra More Genius Thinking

MCP server — doğal dille mod seç, kaliteli cevap al.

Kullanım (tek cümle)

Chat'e yaz, hepsi bu:

düşünme modu mcp easy de düşün: React'te custom hook nasıl yazılır?
düşünme modu mcp medium de düşün: bu kodu incele ve iyileştir
düşünme modu mcp more de düşün: mikroservis mimarisi mi monolith mi?
düşünme modu mcp max de düşün: ödeme sistemini yeniden tasarla

Agent modu otomatik algılar, pass pass iyileştirir, sana sadece final cevabı verir.

Related MCP server: Sequential Thinking MVP Server

Modlar

Mod

Pass

Execution

easy

3

think → read → write

medium

5

think → read → read → write → verify

more

7

medium + write → verify

max

10

çoklu read/write/verify

MCP dosya okumaz/yazmaz. Agent Read/Write/Shell kullanır.

Kısa alternatifler de çalışır: medium de düşün, max thinking, mcp easy de düşün

Kurulum

npm install && npm run build

.cursor/mcp.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ultra-thinking": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/ABSOLUTE/PATH/to/ultraextramoregeniusthinking/dist/server.js"]
    }
  }
}

Lisans

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
thinkB

Thinking başlatır. Mod: easy/medium/more/max. Kullanıcı sadece 'max de düşün' derse conversation_context ile chat özetini ZORUNLU geç.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_messageNoKullanıcının tam mesajı. Örn: "düşünme modu mcp max de düşün"
conversation_contextNoChat geçmişi özeti. Kullanıcı konuyu tekrar yazmadıysa ZORUNLU — agent buraya özet geçer.
questionNoSoru (user_message yoksa)
modeNoeasy | medium | more | max

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. It only says 'starts thinking' with modes, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, reversible actions, or output behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is short with two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Somewhat terse but effective, though the second sentence could be rephrased for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Missing return value information and details about mode effects. With a sibling tool, differentiation is absent, and description does not cover all necessary context for agent to decide.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet description adds value by clarifying mandatory condition for conversation_context and mode shorthand. This extras help agent correctly invoke tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states the tool initiates thinking and specifies mode options. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'think_next', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a specific condition for using conversation_context when user says 'max de düşün', but does not offer when to use this tool versus think_next or mention exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

think_nextC

Pass cevabını gönder. Bitmediyse sonraki pass direktifi, bittiyse final cevap.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYes
answerYesBu pass teslim özeti — iş logu değil: ne yapıldı, hangi dosya, ne değişti

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions sending an answer and deciding continuation, but it omits details about state changes, error handling, or required authentication. The description is insufficient for the agent to anticipate all behavioral consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, making it efficient. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, and the structure does not front-load key information about usage or behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and the existence of a sibling tool, the description should explain what a 'pass' is, how to determine if finished, and how the session_id is used. It fails to provide a complete context for reliable tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 50% (only 'answer' has a description). The tool's description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, leaving the 'session_id' parameter completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool sends a pass answer and either continues or finalizes, but the term 'pass' is undefined and the distinction from the sibling tool 'think' is unclear. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'think'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.6.0
    • First observedthink
    • First observedthink_next
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct phase: think initiates the thinking process with different modes, while think_next handles continuation or finalization. There is no functional overlap between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools share the 'think' prefix, with 'think_next' clearly indicating the subsequent step. This follows a consistent and predictable naming pattern.

Tool Count5/5

With only two tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a straightforward thinking workflow. Each tool serves a necessary and distinct role without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The basic lifecycle of initiating and continuing thinking is covered. A minor gap exists, such as missing tools for cancellation or state inspection, but the core workflow is functional.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SovranAMR/ultraextramoregeniusthinking'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server