Summary
The sequentialthinking tool annotations readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true are inaccurate. The server is stateful and non-idempotent — it maintains per-session thoughtHistory and branches instance state that persists across calls and changes on every invocation.
These annotations were added per #3403's suggestion, but the suggested values were not verified against the server's actual stateful behavior.
Evidence (BETS cycle, 2026-08-30)
Ran a governed Benchmarking/Evaluation/Testing/Standards (BETS) cycle against @modelcontextprotocol/server-sequential-thinking (published npm version, via npx -y). 11 test cases across 4 lanes.
readOnlyHint: true is misleading
The SequentialThinkingServer class (confirmed in src/sequentialthinking/lib.ts on main) holds instance state:
private thoughtHistory: ThoughtData[] = [] (line 23-24)
private branches: Record<string, ThoughtData[]> = {} (line 25-26)
Each processThought call mutates this state:
this.thoughtHistory.push(input) (line 101) — appends to history on every call
this.branches[input.branchId].push(input) (line 111-112) — appends to branch when branchFromThought + branchId provided
Observed across 11 calls in one session: thoughtHistoryLength incremented linearly (1, 2, 3, ... 11). The server is not read-only — it accumulates session state with each invocation.
idempotentHint: true is false
A tool is idempotent if repeated calls with the same arguments produce the same result. Calling sequentialthinking twice with identical arguments produces different thoughtHistoryLength values (N, then N+1) and potentially different branches contents. The tool is non-idempotent by definition.
Suggested fix
annotations: {
readOnlyHint: false, // server maintains thoughtHistory and branches state
destructiveHint: false, // accurate — no external side effects
idempotentHint: false, // repeated calls produce different history lengths
openWorldHint: false, // accurate — operates on internal reasoning state
},
Impact
Clients relying on readOnlyHint: true for safety assumptions (e.g., "safe to call in parallel", "no state side effects to roll back") will miss the session-state accumulation. Clients relying on idempotentHint: true for caching/retry (e.g., "safe to retry without checking result") will misbehave — a retried call produces a different history length and may create a duplicate branch entry.
Source confirmed on main
src/sequentialthinking/index.ts lines 201-209 (current main as of 2026-08-30):
annotations: {
readOnlyHint: true, // ← should be false
destructiveHint: false,
idempotentHint: true, // ← should be false
openWorldHint: false,
},
src/sequentialthinking/lib.ts lines 23-26, 101, 111-112 confirm the stateful behavior.
Context
Happy to open a PR if that's preferred.
Summary
The
sequentialthinkingtool annotationsreadOnlyHint: trueandidempotentHint: trueare inaccurate. The server is stateful and non-idempotent — it maintains per-sessionthoughtHistoryandbranchesinstance state that persists across calls and changes on every invocation.These annotations were added per #3403's suggestion, but the suggested values were not verified against the server's actual stateful behavior.
Evidence (BETS cycle, 2026-08-30)
Ran a governed Benchmarking/Evaluation/Testing/Standards (BETS) cycle against
@modelcontextprotocol/server-sequential-thinking(published npm version, vianpx -y). 11 test cases across 4 lanes.readOnlyHint: trueis misleadingThe
SequentialThinkingServerclass (confirmed insrc/sequentialthinking/lib.tsonmain) holds instance state:private thoughtHistory: ThoughtData[] = [](line 23-24)private branches: Record<string, ThoughtData[]> = {}(line 25-26)Each
processThoughtcall mutates this state:this.thoughtHistory.push(input)(line 101) — appends to history on every callthis.branches[input.branchId].push(input)(line 111-112) — appends to branch whenbranchFromThought+branchIdprovidedObserved across 11 calls in one session:
thoughtHistoryLengthincremented linearly (1, 2, 3, ... 11). The server is not read-only — it accumulates session state with each invocation.idempotentHint: trueis falseA tool is idempotent if repeated calls with the same arguments produce the same result. Calling
sequentialthinkingtwice with identical arguments produces differentthoughtHistoryLengthvalues (N, then N+1) and potentially differentbranchescontents. The tool is non-idempotent by definition.Suggested fix
Impact
Clients relying on
readOnlyHint: truefor safety assumptions (e.g., "safe to call in parallel", "no state side effects to roll back") will miss the session-state accumulation. Clients relying onidempotentHint: truefor caching/retry (e.g., "safe to retry without checking result") will misbehave — a retried call produces a different history length and may create a duplicate branch entry.Source confirmed on
mainsrc/sequentialthinking/index.tslines 201-209 (currentmainas of 2026-08-30):src/sequentialthinking/lib.tslines 23-26, 101, 111-112 confirm the stateful behavior.Context
agents/_state/bets/20260830T092705Z_sequential-thinking.json(HUMMBL internal, available on request)Happy to open a PR if that's preferred.