Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@thread-mind-mcp Create a thread for auth system under main, summarizing what we discussed."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Organize your AI conversations into thread trees. Think less tokens, think more.
ThreadMind is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that structures AI conversations into hierarchical threads. Instead of feeding entire conversation histories to your AI model, ThreadMind lets you maintain concise summaries organized in a tree — drastically reducing token consumption while preserving full context.
Documentation | npm | GitHub
When working with AI coding assistants (Claude Code, ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.), conversations quickly grow long. Every new message sends the entire history as context, burning through tokens and hitting context limits. ThreadMind solves this by:
Replacing history with summaries — each thread stores a concise summary instead of raw conversation
Inheriting context through the tree — a child thread automatically includes its ancestors' summaries
Enabling branching exploration — explore different approaches in separate threads without polluting each other
Supporting team collaboration — share thread trees via git, branch from teammates' threads
Message 1 → Message 2 → ... → Message 50 → Message 51
↑
All 50 messages sent as context
= thousands of tokens wastedmain (summary: 200 tokens)
├── auth (summary: 150 tokens)
│ └── auth-ui (summary: 100 tokens) ← active
└── dashboard (summary: 180 tokens)
Context sent = main + auth + auth-ui = ~450 tokensRelated MCP server: RelayPlane
No installation required — run directly with npx:
npx thread-mind-mcpOr install globally:
npm install -g thread-mind-mcpAdd to your Claude Code MCP settings (~/.claude/settings.json or project .claude/settings.json):
macOS / Linux:
{
"mcpServers": {
"thread-mind": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "thread-mind-mcp"]
}
}
}Windows:
{
"mcpServers": {
"thread-mind": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "cmd",
"args": ["/c", "npx", "thread-mind-mcp"],
"env": {}
}
}
}On Windows,
npxmust be wrapped withcmd /cbecausenpxis a.cmdwrapper and cannot be spawned directly by the MCP stdio transport.
Windows + Volta:
If you use Volta as your Node.js version manager, use volta run to ensure the correct Node.js version is resolved when Claude Code spawns the MCP subprocess:
{
"mcpServers": {
"thread-mind": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "cmd",
"args": ["/c", "volta", "run", "npx", "-y", "thread-mind-mcp"],
"env": {}
}
}
}Or via CLI: claude mcp add thread-mind-mcp --scope project -- cmd /c volta run npx -y thread-mind-mcp
ThreadMind uses the stdio transport, compatible with any MCP client. Use the same configuration above for your platform.
Concept | Description |
Project | A workspace containing a thread tree. Has a title, system context, and mode (solo/team). |
Thread | A node in the tree representing a discussion topic. Stores a markdown summary. |
Context | The assembled chain of summaries from root to active thread — what gets sent to the AI. |
Summary | A concise markdown description of what was discussed/decided in a thread. |
ThreadMind stores everything in a .threadmind/ directory at your project root:
.threadmind/
config.json # Local state (active project/thread, author ID)
.gitignore # Excludes config.json from git
projects/
my-app.json # Project configuration
threads/
my-app/
main.md # Root thread (markdown + YAML frontmatter)
auth-system.md # Child thread
auth-api.md # Grandchild thread
trees/
my-app.json # Tree structure indexThread files use YAML frontmatter:
---
id: auth-system
title: Authentication System
parentId: main
author: mahmoud-a3f9
createdAt: 2026-04-15T10:00:00Z
updatedAt: 2026-04-15T12:30:00Z
---
Implemented JWT-based authentication with refresh tokens.
Using bcrypt for password hashing. Session stored in httpOnly cookies.
Decision: chose Passport.js over custom middleware for maintainability.When you request context, ThreadMind walks up from the active thread to the root, collecting summaries:
## System Context
You are building a Next.js e-commerce application...
---
## Thread: My App
Project overview: Next.js 15, PostgreSQL, Stripe integration...
---
## Thread: Authentication System
JWT-based auth with refresh tokens, bcrypt, Passport.js...
---
## Thread: Auth API Endpoints (active)
POST /auth/login, POST /auth/register, POST /auth/refresh...Only the direct ancestor chain is included — sibling branches are excluded, keeping context minimal.
context_get also reports token estimation:
ThreadMind context: ~450 tokens | depth: 3 threadsTool | Description |
| Create a new project with a root "main" thread |
| List all projects (shows active project) |
| Switch to a different project |
project_createParameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | Project title (used to generate ID) |
| string | No | System prompt or global instructions |
|
| No | Project mode (default: |
Tool | Description |
| Create a child thread branching from a parent |
| Switch to a different thread |
| Display the thread tree as ASCII art |
| Delete a thread and all its descendants |
| Move a thread to a different parent (like |
thread_createParameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | Thread title (used to generate ID) |
| string | No | Parent thread ID (defaults to active thread) |
thread_deleteParameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | Thread ID to delete (cascades to descendants) |
thread_rebaseParameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | Thread ID to move |
| string | Yes | New parent thread ID |
Tool | Description |
| Update the summary content of a thread |
| Get the full assembled context with token estimation |
summary_updateParameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | New summary content (markdown) |
| string | No | Target thread (defaults to active thread) |
Tool | Description |
| Generate instruction files for AI clients (CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, etc.) |
threadmind_initParameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string[] | No | Clients to generate for: |
Generates instruction files that tell AI clients to automatically use ThreadMind:
Client | File | Behavior |
Claude Code |
| Read automatically at every session start |
Cursor |
| Read automatically by Cursor |
Generic |
| Copy-paste into any client's custom instructions |
Tool | Description |
| Show token savings statistics (compression ratio, per-thread breakdown) |
stats_show tracks every summary_update call and computes estimated token savings by comparing cumulative input against the current assembled context.
Resource | URI | Description |
Current Context |
| Assembled context for the active thread |
Thread Tree |
| ASCII visualization of the thread tree |
Prompt | Description |
| Load and inject the assembled context at the start of a session |
| Guide the AI to generate a structured summary for the current thread |
| Show all available ThreadMind commands |
| Get assembled context (shortcut for |
| Display thread tree (shortcut for |
| Create a new thread (shortcut for |
| Switch to a thread (shortcut for |
| Update or generate summary (shortcut for |
| Show token savings (shortcut for |
| Generate instruction files (shortcut for |
In Claude Code, these appear as slash commands: /mcp__thread-mind__tm-help, /mcp__thread-mind__tm-create, etc.
After running threadmind_init, the generated CLAUDE.md enables short text commands you can type directly in chat:
Command | Action |
| Show all available commands |
| Load assembled context |
| Show thread tree |
| Create a new thread |
| Switch to a thread |
| Auto-generate and save a summary |
| Save specific summary content |
| Show token savings statistics |
| Delete a thread |
| Generate instruction files |
| Create a new project |
| List all projects |
You: Create a new ThreadMind project called "E-Commerce App" with system context
"Building a Next.js e-commerce platform with Stripe payments"
AI: [calls project_create] → Project "e-commerce-app" created. Main thread active.
You: Initialize ThreadMind for this project
AI: [calls threadmind_init] → Generated CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, instructions.mdYou: [discuss authentication implementation with AI...]
You: Update the summary for this thread with what we discussed
AI: [calls summary_update with content summarizing the auth discussion]You: Create a new thread for "Payment Integration"
AI: [calls thread_create] → Thread "payment-integration" created under "main".
main ← active
└── payment-integrationYou: Show me the thread tree
AI: [calls thread_list] →
main
├── auth-system
│ ├── auth-ui
│ └── auth-api
└── payment-integration ← activeYou: What's the current context?
AI: [calls context_get] →
## System Context
Building a Next.js e-commerce platform with Stripe payments
---
## Thread: E-Commerce App
Project overview...
---
## Thread: Payment Integration (active)
Stripe integration details...Team mode enables collaborative thread trees shared via git.
Create a project in team mode:
project_create with title "Shared Project" and mode "team"Each team member gets a unique author ID (auto-generated from git config user.name)
Thread files (.threadmind/threads/) and tree structure (.threadmind/trees/) are tracked by git
The local config (.threadmind/config.json) is gitignored — each member has their own active thread state
Action | Own threads | Teammates' threads |
Read summary | Yes | Yes |
Update summary | Yes | No |
Delete | Yes | No |
Create child thread | Yes | Yes |
Switch to | Yes | Yes |
# Pull teammates' threads
git pull
# View the full tree (includes everyone's threads)
# → Use thread_list
# Branch from a teammate's thread
# → Use thread_create with parentId set to their thread
# Push your new threads
git add .threadmind/
git commit -m "Add payment-integration thread"
git pushgit clone <repository-url>
cd thread-mind-mcp
npm installnpm run buildnpm test # Run all tests once
npm run test:watch # Watch modenpm run dev # Watches src/ and restarts on changesnpm run lint # TypeScript type check without emittingMake sure you are logged in to npm:
npm loginEnsure all tests pass:
npm test# Patch release (0.1.0 → 0.1.1) — bug fixes
npm run release:patch
# Minor release (0.1.0 → 0.2.0) — new features
npm run release:minor
# Major release (0.1.0 → 1.0.0) — breaking changes
npm run release:majorThese commands will:
Run tests
Build the project
Bump the version in package.json
Publish to npm
Don't forget to update
CHANGELOG.mdbefore releasing.
src/
index.ts # Entry point — stdio transport
server.ts # McpServer factory (tools + resources + prompts)
types/
index.ts # All TypeScript interfaces
core/
frontmatter.ts # YAML frontmatter parser/serializer (zero deps)
storage.ts # File I/O layer with atomic writes
project.ts # Project lifecycle management
thread.ts # Thread CRUD, tree operations, ASCII rendering
context.ts # Context assembly + token estimation
instructions.ts # Multi-client instruction file generator
stats.ts # Token savings tracking and statistics
tools/
index.ts # 11 MCP tool registrations with Zod schemas
resources/
index.ts # 2 MCP resource registrations
prompts/
index.ts # 2 MCP prompt templatesFile-based storage over SQLite — git-friendly, human-readable, zero native dependencies
YAML frontmatter — thread metadata and content in a single .md file, readable by both humans and tools
No external YAML parser — minimal hand-rolled parser for the simple flat frontmatter format
Atomic writes — write to temp file first, prevents corruption on crash
Slugified IDs — thread IDs derived from titles ("Auth System" → "auth-system"), collision-safe with auto-suffix
MCP Prompts — structured templates (start-thread, summarize-thread) to guide AI clients
Multi-client instructions — auto-generated CLAUDE.md / .cursorrules for seamless integration
Token estimation — approximate token count reported with every context assembly
Node.js >= 18.0.0
Git (optional, for team mode author detection and collaboration)
Get the assembled context for the active thread (walks up the parent chain). Call this at the start of every session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It mentions 'assembled context' and 'walks up the parent chain' but does not disclose whether the operation is safe, idempotent, or any potential side effects.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Every part earns its place, stating purpose and usage recommendation efficiently.
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?
The description is adequate for a no-parameter tool, but lacks details about the structure or contents of the returned context. Without an output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without arguments (returns context for active thread).
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('assembled context for the active thread'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying its operation (walks up parent chain).
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this at the start of every session', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use, leaving no alternative directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new ThreadMind project with a main thread
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Project title | |
| systemContext | No | System context or instructions for this project | |
| mode | No | Project mode: solo (default) or team |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. It is minimal.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.
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 sibling tools and absence of output schema, the description is adequate but lacks information about what is returned (e.g., project ID) or any side effects.
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?
The description adds 'with a main thread', which is not in the schema, providing context beyond the 100% covered parameter descriptions. It clarifies that creation also includes a main thread.
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 verb 'Create', the resource 'new ThreadMind project', and includes 'with a main thread', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_list or project_switch.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all ThreadMind projects
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or return format. The implied read-only nature is not explicitly stated.
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 a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details like return structure or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a list operation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score 4 is appropriate.
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 'List all ThreadMind projects' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('ThreadMind projects'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like project_create or project_switch by focusing on listing all projects without filtering or pagination.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Switch to a different project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project ID to switch to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose important behavioral aspects such as whether switching persists, requires authentication, or affects other tool operations. The agent is left to infer side effects.
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 a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's action with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the effect of switching (e.g., changes context for subsequent queries) or provide hints on how to obtain valid project IDs.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'switch' and identifies the resource 'project', making its core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'thread_switch' which operates on a different resource.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'project_list' to first identify projects, or prerequisites like requiring an existing project. No context on typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show token savings statistics for the active ThreadMind project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Show' indicating read-only, but does not elaborate on what 'token savings' entails, return format, or any side effects. This is minimal.
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?
A single sentence that captures the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
For a simple display tool with no parameters, the description sufficiently explains the action. However, it could mention the need for an active project, but it is implicit in the name.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and baseline score 4 is appropriate.
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 uses 'Show' as the verb and specifies 'token savings statistics for the active ThreadMind project', making the action and resource clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on project/thread management.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage when needing token savings stats, but no exclusions or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update the summary/content of a thread
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The new summary content (markdown) | |
| threadId | No | Thread ID to update (defaults to active thread) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. Only mentions 'update' without elaboration.
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?
Single sentence is concise but somewhat under-specified; it could benefit from additional context while remaining brief.
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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description lacks completeness regarding return values, error conditions, or side effects, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (summary/content of a thread), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like thread_create or thread_delete.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where this update is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new child thread branching from a parent thread
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Thread title | |
| parentId | No | Parent thread ID (defaults to current active thread) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'branching' without explaining what that entails (e.g., content copying, relationship implications). No disclosure of permissions, side effects, or return behavior.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Minimal description for a creation tool with two parameters and no output schema. Lacks details on post-creation behavior (e.g., active thread change, return value). Adequate but incomplete.
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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds 'branching' context but does not provide new parameter-level information beyond the schema.
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 creates a new child thread branching from a parent thread. It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like thread_delete or thread_list.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thread_switch or thread_list. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for creating a child thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a thread and all its descendants
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes | Thread ID to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the destructive action and scope. It does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects beyond the stated descendants.
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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary information.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It could mention error handling or success confirmation, but it is sufficient for a simple destructive tool.
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?
The input schema covers the parameter with a description, and the tool description adds the important context that deletion affects descendants, going beyond the schema's 'Thread ID to delete'.
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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a thread and all its descendants'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like thread_create or thread_list.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., thread_switch or context_get), nor any prerequisites or conditions for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Display the thread tree for the active project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or output format.
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?
A single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded and waste-free. Every word is necessary.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple display tool with no parameters, but it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., tree format) and does not leverage sibling context to clarify its role.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description adds no further parameter information, which is acceptable as none exist.
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 verb 'Display' and the resource 'thread tree for the active project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like thread_create or thread_delete which are mutations.
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 implies usage for viewing the thread tree but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like context_get or thread_switch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate instruction files (CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, etc.) to enable automatic ThreadMind integration with AI clients
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clients | No | AI clients to generate instructions for (default: all). Options: "claude", "cursor", "generic" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that instruction files are generated, but fails to mention whether existing files are overwritten, if special permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without excess words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Generate instruction files') and is appropriately concise.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level purpose and parameter meaning via schema. However, it lacks details about file overwrite behavior, target directory, and any prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'clients' parameter with valid options and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 generates instruction files (like CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules) for integrating ThreadMind with AI clients. It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'instruction files', and the purpose 'enable automatic ThreadMind integration'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle context, projects, and threads.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or specific scenarios. The agent must infer usage from tool names and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Move a thread to a different parent. All descendants move with it. Similar to git rebase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes | ID of the thread to move | |
| newParentId | Yes | ID of the new parent thread |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry transparency. It discloses that all descendants move with the thread, which is crucial. However, it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or constraints like cycles, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds a key detail (descendants) and a helpful analogy. Information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits return value information and potential constraints (e.g., circular parents). It adequately covers the core behavior but lacks completeness in describing the full effect and post-condition.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (threadId, newParentId). The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Move' and resource 'thread to a different parent', clearly stating the action. The analogy to git rebase and mention of descendants distinguish it from sibling tools like thread_delete or thread_list.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. While the git rebase analogy hints at usage, there is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions (e.g., cannot move to a descendant), or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Switch to a different thread
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes | Thread ID to switch to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a vague action. No information is given about side effects (e.g., whether this changes the active thread in a session, requires authentication, or returns data). For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.
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 concise at one sentence, but it is too brief given the tool's purpose. It could include a brief note on what switching implies without being verbose; currently it feels under-specified.
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 tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to convey important context such as success conditions or whether the switch is permanent or temporary, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (threadId) already described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it does not improve understanding beyond the schema.
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 'Switch to a different thread' clearly states the verb 'switch' and the resource 'thread', distinguishing it from sibling tools like thread_create or thread_delete. However, it lacks specificity on what switching entails (e.g., activating the thread for further actions).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like project_switch or thread_create. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions, 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.4.2context_getproject_createproject_listproject_switchstats_showsummary_updatethread_createthread_deletethread_listthread_rebasethread_switchthreadmind_initAll tools have clearly distinct purposes: context_get, project_create/list/switch, stats_show, summary_update, thread_create/delete/list/rebase/switch, and threadmind_init each target a unique action with no overlapping functionality.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., context_get, project_create, thread_rebase). Even 'threadmind_init' fits as verb_noun with 'threadmind' as a compound noun.
12 tools is well-scoped for a hierarchical thread management system, covering project and thread lifecycle without being excessive or insufficient.
Core thread operations are present, but missing project deletion and a direct way to retrieve a single thread's content (only full context via context_get) creates notable gaps.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Memory for deep conversational context across any platform
Turn AI conversations into visual knowledge maps. Create, connect, search, and organize thoughts.
Cross-LLM persistent memory: store context once, recall it from any AI model.
Personal wiki and memory layer for AI assistants. Persistent, structured memory across sessions.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mahmoud-nb/thread-mind-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
