MCP Hub
Back to servers

prolog-reasoner

SWI-Prolog execution for LLMs with CLP(FD) and recursion — boosts logic/constraint accuracy from 73% to 90% on a 30-problem benchmark.

glama
Forks
1
Updated
Apr 15, 2026

prolog-reasoner

PyPI version Python versions CI License: MIT

SWI-Prolog as a "logic calculator" for LLMs — available as an MCP server and a Python library. Eliminate the black box from LLM logical reasoning.

LLMs excel at natural language but struggle with formal logic. Prolog excels at logical reasoning but can't process natural language. prolog-reasoner bridges this gap by exposing SWI-Prolog execution to LLMs through two complementary surfaces:

  • MCP server — the connected LLM (e.g. Claude) writes Prolog and executes it via the server. No LLM API key needed on the server side.
  • Python library — a full NL→Prolog pipeline with self-correction, for programs that don't have an LLM in the loop. Requires an OpenAI or Anthropic API key.

Both surfaces share the same Prolog executor; the library adds an LLM-based translator on top. In either mode, the Prolog code is the reasoning — you can see what was inferred, how, and why.

Features

  • MCP tool (execute_prolog): run arbitrary SWI-Prolog code with a query
  • Transparent intermediate representation: the Prolog code is the audit trail — inspect, modify, or verify before execution
  • CLP(FD) support: constraint logic programming for scheduling and optimization
  • Negation-as-failure, recursion, all standard SWI-Prolog features
  • Library mode: NL→Prolog translation with self-correction loop (OpenAI / Anthropic)

Requirements

  • Python ≥ 3.10
  • SWI-Prolog installed and on PATH (≥ 9.0)
  • API key for OpenAI or Anthropic — only for library mode, not for the MCP server

Installation

# MCP server only (no LLM dependencies)
pip install prolog-reasoner

# Library with OpenAI
pip install prolog-reasoner[openai]

# Library with Anthropic
pip install prolog-reasoner[anthropic]

# Both providers
pip install prolog-reasoner[all]

MCP Server Setup

The MCP server exposes a single tool, execute_prolog, that runs Prolog code written by the connected LLM. It does not call any external LLM API, so no API key is required.

Claude Desktop / Claude Code

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "prolog-reasoner": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["prolog-reasoner"]
    }
  }
}

Or, if prolog-reasoner is installed directly:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "prolog-reasoner": {
      "command": "prolog-reasoner"
    }
  }
}

Docker (SWI-Prolog bundled)

Use Docker if you don't want to install SWI-Prolog locally:

docker build -f docker/Dockerfile -t prolog-reasoner .
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "prolog-reasoner": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "prolog-reasoner"]
    }
  }
}

Tool reference

execute_prolog(prolog_code, query, max_results=100)

  • prolog_code — Prolog facts and rules (string)
  • query — Prolog query to run, e.g. "mortal(X)" (string)
  • max_results — cap the number of solutions returned (default 100)

Returns a JSON object with success, output, query, error, and metadata (execution time, result count, truncated flag).

Library Usage

The library exposes PrologExecutor (Prolog-only, no LLM) and PrologReasoner (NL→Prolog pipeline, needs an LLM API key).

Execute Prolog directly (no LLM)

import asyncio
from prolog_reasoner.config import Settings
from prolog_reasoner.executor import PrologExecutor

async def main():
    settings = Settings()  # no API key needed
    executor = PrologExecutor(settings)
    result = await executor.execute(
        prolog_code="human(socrates). mortal(X) :- human(X).",
        query="mortal(X)",
    )
    print(result.output)  # mortal(socrates)

asyncio.run(main())

Full NL→Prolog pipeline (requires LLM API key)

import asyncio
from prolog_reasoner import PrologReasoner, TranslationRequest, ExecutionRequest
from prolog_reasoner.config import Settings
from prolog_reasoner.executor import PrologExecutor
from prolog_reasoner.translator import PrologTranslator
from prolog_reasoner.llm_client import LLMClient

async def main():
    settings = Settings(llm_api_key="sk-...")  # from env or explicit
    llm = LLMClient(
        provider=settings.llm_provider,
        api_key=settings.llm_api_key,
        model=settings.llm_model,
        timeout_seconds=settings.llm_timeout_seconds,
    )
    reasoner = PrologReasoner(
        translator=PrologTranslator(llm, settings),
        executor=PrologExecutor(settings),
    )
    translation = await reasoner.translate(
        TranslationRequest(query="Socrates is human. All humans are mortal. Is Socrates mortal?")
    )
    print(translation.prolog_code)
    result = await reasoner.execute(
        ExecutionRequest(prolog_code=translation.prolog_code, query=translation.suggested_query)
    )
    print(result.output)

asyncio.run(main())

Configuration

All settings via environment variables (prefix PROLOG_REASONER_):

VariableDefaultRequired for
LLM_PROVIDERopenailibrary (openai or anthropic)
LLM_API_KEY""library only — leave unset for MCP
LLM_MODELgpt-5.4-minilibrary
LLM_TEMPERATURE0.0library
LLM_TIMEOUT_SECONDS30.0library
SWIPL_PATHswiplboth
EXECUTION_TIMEOUT_SECONDS10.0both
LOG_LEVELINFOboth

Benchmark

benchmarks/ contains 30 logic problems across 5 categories (deduction, transitive, constraint, contradiction, multi-step) to compare LLM-only reasoning vs LLM+Prolog reasoning. The benchmark exercises the library path (translator + executor), since it requires the NL→Prolog step.

Results

Measured on anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6, single run over 30 problems:

PipelineAccuracyAvg latency
LLM-only22/30 (73.3%)1.7s
LLM + Prolog27/30 (90.0%)3.8s

Per-category breakdown:

CategoryLLM-onlyLLM + Prolog
deduction6/66/6
transitive6/65/6
constraint3/76/7
contradiction4/43/4
multi-step3/77/7

The gap is concentrated in constraint (SEND+MORE, 6-queens, knapsack, K4 coloring, Einstein-lite) and multi-step (Nim game theory, 3-person knights-and-knaves, TSP-4, zebra puzzle) — exactly the combinatorial/search-heavy territory where symbolic solvers outperform pattern completion. On purely deductive or transitive questions the LLM is already strong and Prolog adds latency without accuracy gains.

All 3 LLM+Prolog failures were Prolog execution errors from malformed LLM-generated code (missing predicate definitions, unbound CLP(FD) variables) rather than reasoning errors — addressable via prompt tuning. Notably, every failure is inspectable: you can see the exact Prolog that failed and why, rather than a wrong natural-language answer with no explanation.

Running it yourself

docker run --rm -e PROLOG_REASONER_LLM_API_KEY=sk-... \
    prolog-reasoner-dev python benchmarks/run_benchmark.py

Results are saved to benchmarks/results.json.

Comparison with other Prolog MCPs

Several Prolog MCP servers exist, each with different design choices. prolog-reasoner is intentionally stateless and spot-use — Prolog is a calculator you call when logic matters, not the backbone of your agent's memory.

prolog-reasonerStateful Prolog MCPs
Prolog's rolePer-call reasoning toolProject-wide knowledge base
StateStateless (each call independent)Persistent sessions / layered KBs
ReproducibilitySame input → same output, alwaysDepends on accumulated state
Integration effortUse where logic matters, skip where it doesn'tArchitectural commitment
A/B testable vs LLM-onlyYes (each call is a controlled experiment)Structurally not comparable

This is also why accuracy benchmarks are published here and not elsewhere: statelessness is what makes a side-by-side comparison possible.

If you need persistent agent memory, hallucination-safeguarded fact storage, or a full neuro-symbolic substrate, other projects may fit better:

We're the spot-use option.

Development

# Build dev image
docker build -f docker/Dockerfile -t prolog-reasoner-dev .

# Run tests (no API key needed — LLM calls are mocked)
docker run --rm prolog-reasoner-dev

# With coverage
docker run --rm prolog-reasoner-dev pytest tests/ -v --cov=prolog_reasoner

# Or via docker compose
docker compose -f docker/docker-compose.yml run --rm test

License

MIT

Reviews

No reviews yet

Sign in to write a review