my-pal-mcp-server/docs/api/tools/thinkdeep.md

ThinkDeep Tool API Reference

Overview

The ThinkDeep Tool provides access to Gemini's maximum analytical capabilities for complex architecture decisions, system design, and strategic planning. It's designed for comprehensive analysis that requires deep computational thinking and extensive reasoning.

Tool Schema

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "description": "Complex architecture, system design, strategic planning",
  "inputSchema": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
      "current_analysis": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "Your current thinking/analysis to extend and validate"
      },
      "problem_context": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "Additional context about the problem or goal",
        "optional": true
      },
      "focus_areas": {
        "type": "array",
        "items": {"type": "string"},
        "description": "Specific aspects to focus on (architecture, performance, security, etc.)",
        "optional": true
      },
      "files": {
        "type": "array", 
        "items": {"type": "string"},
        "description": "Optional file paths or directories for additional context",
        "optional": true
      },
      "thinking_mode": {
        "type": "string",
        "enum": ["minimal", "low", "medium", "high", "max"],
        "default": "high",
        "description": "Thinking depth for analysis"
      },
      "temperature": {
        "type": "number",
        "minimum": 0,
        "maximum": 1,
        "default": 0.7,
        "description": "Temperature for creative thinking"
      },
      "continuation_id": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "Thread continuation ID for multi-turn conversations",
        "optional": true
      }
    },
    "required": ["current_analysis"]
  }
}

Usage Patterns

1. Architecture Decision Making

Ideal For:

• Evaluating architectural alternatives
• Designing system components
• Planning scalability strategies
• Technology selection decisions

Example:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "We have an MCP server that needs to handle 100+ concurrent Claude sessions. Currently using single-threaded processing with Redis for conversation memory.",
    "problem_context": "Growing user base requires better performance and reliability. Budget allows for infrastructure changes.",
    "focus_areas": ["scalability", "performance", "reliability", "cost"],
    "thinking_mode": "max"
  }
}

2. System Design Exploration

Ideal For:

• Complex system architecture
• Integration pattern analysis
• Security architecture design
• Performance optimization strategies

Example:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Need to design a secure file processing pipeline that handles user uploads, virus scanning, content analysis, and storage with audit trails.",
    "focus_areas": ["security", "performance", "compliance", "monitoring"],
    "files": ["/workspace/security/", "/workspace/processing/"],
    "thinking_mode": "high"
  }
}

3. Strategic Technical Planning

Ideal For:

• Long-term technical roadmaps
• Migration strategies
• Technology modernization
• Risk assessment and mitigation

Example:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Legacy monolithic application needs migration to microservices. 500K+ LOC, 50+ developers, critical business system with 99.9% uptime requirement.",
    "problem_context": "Must maintain business continuity while modernizing. Team has limited microservices experience.",
    "focus_areas": ["migration_strategy", "risk_mitigation", "team_training", "timeline"],
    "thinking_mode": "max",
    "temperature": 0.3
  }
}

4. Problem Solving & Innovation

Ideal For:

• Novel technical challenges
• Creative solution development
• Cross-domain problem analysis
• Innovation opportunities

Example:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "AI model serving platform needs to optimize GPU utilization across heterogeneous hardware while minimizing latency and maximizing throughput.",
    "focus_areas": ["resource_optimization", "scheduling", "performance", "cost_efficiency"],
    "thinking_mode": "max",
    "temperature": 0.8
  }
}

Parameter Details

current_analysis (required)

• Type: string
• Purpose: Starting point for deep analysis and extension
• Best Practices:
  • Provide comprehensive background and context
  • Include current understanding and assumptions
  • Mention constraints and requirements
  • Reference specific challenges or decision points

Example Structure:

Current Analysis:
- Problem: [Clear problem statement]
- Context: [Business/technical context]
- Current State: [What exists now]
- Requirements: [What needs to be achieved]
- Constraints: [Technical, business, resource limitations]
- Open Questions: [Specific areas needing analysis]

problem_context (optional)

• Type: string
• Purpose: Additional contextual information
• Usage:
  • Business requirements and priorities
  • Technical constraints and dependencies
  • Team capabilities and limitations
  • Timeline and budget considerations

focus_areas (optional)

• Type: array of strings
• Purpose: Directs analysis toward specific aspects
• Common Values:
  • Technical: architecture, performance, scalability, security
  • Operational: reliability, monitoring, deployment, maintenance
  • Business: cost, timeline, risk, compliance
  • Team: skills, training, processes, communication

thinking_mode (optional)

• Type: string enum
• Default: "high"
• Purpose: Controls depth and computational budget
• Recommendations by Use Case:
  • high (16384 tokens): Standard complex analysis
  • max (32768 tokens): Critical decisions, comprehensive research
  • medium (8192 tokens): Moderate complexity, time-sensitive decisions
  • low (2048 tokens): Quick strategic input (unusual for thinkdeep)

temperature (optional)

• Type: number (0.0 - 1.0)
• Default: 0.7
• Purpose: Balances analytical rigor with creative exploration
• Guidelines:
  • 0.0-0.3: High accuracy, conservative recommendations (critical systems)
  • 0.4-0.7: Balanced analysis with creative alternatives (most use cases)
  • 0.8-1.0: High creativity, innovative solutions (research, innovation)

Response Format

Comprehensive Analysis Structure

{
  "content": "# Deep Analysis Report\n\n## Executive Summary\n[High-level findings and recommendations]\n\n## Current State Analysis\n[Detailed assessment of existing situation]\n\n## Alternative Approaches\n[Multiple solution paths with trade-offs]\n\n## Recommended Strategy\n[Specific recommendations with rationale]\n\n## Implementation Roadmap\n[Phased approach with milestones]\n\n## Risk Assessment\n[Potential challenges and mitigation strategies]\n\n## Success Metrics\n[Measurable outcomes and KPIs]\n\n## Next Steps\n[Immediate actions and decision points]",
  "metadata": {
    "thinking_mode": "high",
    "analysis_depth": "comprehensive",
    "alternatives_considered": 5,
    "focus_areas": ["architecture", "performance", "scalability"],
    "confidence_level": "high",
    "tokens_used": 15840,
    "analysis_time": "8.2s"
  },
  "continuation_id": "arch-analysis-550e8400",
  "status": "success"
}

Analysis Components

Executive Summary:

• Key findings in 2-3 sentences
• Primary recommendation
• Critical decision points
• Success probability assessment

Current State Analysis:

• Strengths and weaknesses of existing approach
• Technical debt and architectural issues
• Performance bottlenecks and limitations
• Security and compliance gaps

Alternative Approaches:

• 3-5 distinct solution paths
• Trade-off analysis for each option
• Resource requirements and timelines
• Risk profiles and success factors

Recommended Strategy:

• Detailed recommendation with clear rationale
• Step-by-step implementation approach
• Resource allocation and timeline
• Success criteria and validation methods

Risk Assessment:

• Technical risks and mitigation strategies
• Business risks and contingency plans
• Team and organizational challenges
• External dependencies and uncertainties

Advanced Usage Patterns

1. Multi-Phase Analysis

Phase 1: Problem Exploration

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Initial problem statement and context",
    "focus_areas": ["problem_definition", "requirements_analysis"],
    "thinking_mode": "high"
  }
}

Phase 2: Solution Development

{
  "name": "thinkdeep", 
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Previous analysis findings + refined problem definition",
    "focus_areas": ["solution_design", "architecture", "implementation"],
    "continuation_id": "previous-analysis-id",
    "thinking_mode": "max"
  }
}

Phase 3: Implementation Planning

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Chosen solution approach + design details",
    "focus_areas": ["implementation_strategy", "risk_mitigation", "timeline"],
    "continuation_id": "previous-analysis-id",
    "thinking_mode": "high"
  }
}

2. Adversarial Analysis

Primary Analysis:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Proposed solution with detailed rationale",
    "focus_areas": ["solution_validation", "feasibility"],
    "thinking_mode": "high",
    "temperature": 0.4
  }
}

Devil's Advocate Review:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Previous analysis + instruction to challenge assumptions and find flaws",
    "focus_areas": ["risk_analysis", "failure_modes", "alternative_perspectives"],
    "continuation_id": "primary-analysis-id",
    "thinking_mode": "high",
    "temperature": 0.6
  }
}

3. Collaborative Decision Making

Technical Analysis:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Technical requirements and constraints",
    "focus_areas": ["technical_feasibility", "architecture", "performance"],
    "thinking_mode": "high"
  }
}

Business Analysis:

{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Technical findings + business context",
    "focus_areas": ["business_value", "cost_benefit", "strategic_alignment"],
    "continuation_id": "technical-analysis-id",
    "thinking_mode": "high"
  }
}

Integration with Other Tools

ThinkDeep → CodeReview Flow

// 1. Strategic analysis
{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "Need to refactor authentication system for better security",
    "focus_areas": ["security", "architecture"]
  }
}

// 2. Detailed code review based on strategic insights
{
  "name": "codereview", 
  "arguments": {
    "files": ["/workspace/auth/"],
    "context": "Strategic analysis identified need for security-focused refactoring",
    "review_type": "security",
    "continuation_id": "strategic-analysis-id"
  }
}

ThinkDeep → Analyze Flow

// 1. High-level strategy
{
  "name": "thinkdeep",
  "arguments": {
    "current_analysis": "System performance issues under high load",
    "focus_areas": ["performance", "scalability"]
  }
}

// 2. Detailed codebase analysis
{
  "name": "analyze",
  "arguments": {
    "files": ["/workspace/"],
    "question": "Identify performance bottlenecks based on strategic analysis",
    "analysis_type": "performance",
    "continuation_id": "strategy-analysis-id"
  }
}

Performance Characteristics

Response Times by Thinking Mode

• medium: 4-8 seconds (unusual for thinkdeep)
• high: 8-15 seconds (recommended default)
• max: 15-30 seconds (comprehensive analysis)

Quality Indicators

• Depth: Number of alternatives considered
• Breadth: Range of focus areas covered
• Precision: Specificity of recommendations
• Actionability: Clarity of next steps

Resource Usage

• Memory: 200-500MB per analysis session
• Network: High (extensive Gemini API usage)
• Storage: Redis conversation persistence (48h TTL for complex analyses)
• CPU: Low (primarily network I/O bound)

Best Practices

Effective Analysis Prompts

Provide Rich Context:

Current Analysis:
We're designing a real-time collaborative editing system like Google Docs. 
Key requirements:
- Support 1000+ concurrent users per document
- Sub-100ms latency for edits
- Conflict resolution for simultaneous edits
- Offline support with sync

Current challenges:
- Operational Transform vs CRDT decision
- Server architecture (centralized vs distributed)
- Client-side performance with large documents
- Database design for version history

Constraints:
- Team of 8 developers (2 senior, 6 mid-level)
- 6-month timeline
- Cloud-first deployment (AWS/Azure)
- Must integrate with existing authentication system

Focus on Decisions:

• Frame analysis around specific decisions that need to be made
• Include decision criteria and trade-offs
• Mention stakeholders and their priorities
• Reference timeline and resource constraints

Conversation Management

1. Use Continuation for Related Analyses: Build complex understanding over multiple calls
2. Reference Previous Insights: Explicitly connect new analysis to previous findings
3. Validate Assumptions: Use follow-up calls to challenge and refine thinking
4. Document Decisions: Capture key insights for future reference

Quality Optimization

1. Match Thinking Mode to Complexity: Use 'max' only for truly complex decisions
2. Balance Temperature: Lower for critical systems, higher for innovation
3. Iterative Refinement: Multiple focused analyses often better than single broad one
4. Cross-Validation: Use adversarial analysis for critical decisions

---

The ThinkDeep Tool serves as your strategic thinking partner, providing comprehensive analysis and creative problem-solving capabilities for the most challenging technical and architectural decisions.