Config is the same across clients — only the file and path differ.
{
"mcpServers": {
"steelmind": {
"args": [
"-y",
"@stabgan/steelmind-mcp"
],
"command": "npx"
}
}
}Are you the author?
Add this badge to your README to show your security score and help users find safe servers.
The research-grounded reasoning MCP server for AI agents. Combines step-by-step sequential thinking with steel-manning verification — backed by 43+ cognitive science and AI research papers.
Run this in your terminal to verify the server starts. Then let us know if it worked — your result helps other developers.
npx -y '@stabgan/steelmind-mcp' 2>&1 | head -1 && echo "✓ Server started successfully"
After testing, let us know if it worked:
Five weighted categories — click any category to see the underlying evidence.
No known CVEs.
Checked @stabgan/steelmind-mcp against OSV.dev.
Click any tool to inspect its schema.
Be the first to review
Have you used this server?
Share your experience — it helps other developers decide.
Sign in to write a review.
Others in ai-ml
Dynamic problem-solving through sequential thought chains
Persistent memory using a knowledge graph
An autonomous agent that conducts deep research on any data using any LLM providers
🌊 The leading agent orchestration platform for Claude. Deploy intelligent multi-agent swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features enterprise-grade architecture, distributed swarm intelligence, RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex Integration
MCP Security Weekly
Get CVE alerts and security updates for Steelmind MCP Server and similar servers.
Start a conversation
Ask a question, share a tip, or report an issue.
Sign in to join the discussion.
The research-grounded reasoning MCP server for AI agents. Combines step-by-step sequential thinking with steel-manning verification — backed by 43+ cognitive science and AI research papers.
Steelmind gives your AI agent two tools:
think — Record structured reasoning steps with sequential decomposition. Embeds Socratic self-questioning and Polya's problem-solving method.verify — Challenge conclusions with steel-manning before committing. Embeds dialectical evaluation from MetaCrit and SIEV research.The code is minimal. The descriptions do the heavy lifting — tool descriptions account for ~80% of reasoning improvement per Anthropic τ-bench research.
| Feature | Think MCP | Sequential Thinking | Steelmind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step tracking | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Adjustable step count | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Cognitive mode separation | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Steel-manning verification | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Socratic self-questioning | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Research-grounded descriptions | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Verify nudge on completion | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Tool count | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Key research insight: MetaCrit (arxiv 2507.15015) proved that separating reasoning generation from reasoning evaluation prevents self-bias and improves accuracy by up to 76%. Sequential-thinking uses one tool for both. Steelmind separates them.
{
"mcpServers": {
"steelmind": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@stabgan/steelmind-mcp"]
}
}
}
{
"mcpServers": {
"steelmind": {
"command": "docker",
"args": ["run", "--rm", "-i", "stabgan/steelmind-mcp"]
}
}
}
npm install -g @stabgan/steelmind-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"steelmind": {
"command": "steelmind-mcp"
}
}
}
think toolRecords a structured reasoning step with sequential tracking.
Input:
{
"thought": "What are the dependencies? Need to check imports before refactoring.",
"thoughtNumber": 1,
"totalThoughts": 3,
"nextThoughtNeeded": true
}
Output (mid-sequence):
[Thinking 1/3]
What are the dependencies? Need to check imports before refactoring.
Output (final step — includes verify nudge):
[Thinking 3/3]
My conclusion: use the adapter pattern for backward compatibility.
---
Thinking complete. Before acting on this conclusion, use the verify tool to challenge it.
The verify nudge appears in the tool result (not just the description), making it far more likely the model will actually call verify. Tool results get different attention treatment than descriptions — they're processed as fresh context.
verify toolChallenges your reasoning with steel-manning before you commit.
Input:
{
"concern": "The adapter pattern adds complexity. Is the simpler approach actually better?"
}
Output:
The adapter pattern adds complexity. Is the simpler approach actually better?
Pure identity function — returns