
Prolog Reasoner
io.github.rikarazomePublished by GitHub account rikarazomev0.2.1Updated Oct 24, 2026
SWI-Prolog as a logic calculator for LLMs
Overview
A local MCP server that runs SWI-Prolog so an assistant can solve logic problems as executable Prolog code instead of guessing.
- What you can do
- Execute Prolog facts, rules and queries and get structured results, errors and timing metadata back, with optional proof traces and result caps. Save, list, read and delete named rule bases so stable domain rules can be reused across calls by name. Reuse saved rule bases inside an execution call so only situation-specific facts are written each time. Report categorized errors with natural-language hints so the assistant can correct malformed Prolog.
- When to use it
- Useful when an assistant must handle constraint satisfaction, multi-step inference, exhaustive search or other formal logic where plain language reasoning is unreliable, and when you want the reasoning to exist as inspectable, re-runnable code.
- Requirements
- Runs as a local stdio process, typically launched with uvx from the prolog-reasoner PyPI package. Needs Python 3.10 or later and SWI-Prolog 9.0 or later on PATH, or the provided Docker image with SWI-Prolog bundled. No API key is needed for the MCP server; rule bases are stored under a configurable rules directory.
Installation
In SourceWeft
- Open Prolog Reasoner in the dashboard and add it to a workspace.
- Enable the server for the chats that should use its tools.
Desktop only via STDIO. STDIO servers start a local process, so they need the SourceWeft desktop host.
Other MCP clients
Follow the launch instructions in the repository.
README
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.
Does it help?
On the built-in 30-problem logic benchmark:
The gap concentrates in constraint satisfaction and multi-step reasoning — the combinatorial territory LLMs are weak on and Prolog is strong on. Full breakdown below.
Why it works
LLMs pattern-match; Prolog actually searches and solves. When the LLM writes its problem down as Prolog, two things happen at once:
- Prolog handles the combinatorial work LLMs are weak on — constraint satisfaction, multi-step inference, exhaustive search.
- The reasoning exists as code you can read, re-run, and debug. When it goes wrong, you see the exact Prolog that failed and why.
Two ways to use it
- MCP server — Claude (or any MCP client) calls it as a logic solver during conversation. Rule bases let the LLM save stable domain rules once and reference them by name per call.
- Python library — full NL→Prolog pipeline with self-correction. Requires OpenAI or Anthropic.
Features
- MCP tools:
execute_prologfor arbitrary SWI-Prolog execution, pluslist_rule_bases/get_rule_base/save_rule_base/delete_rule_basefor reusable named rule bases (v14) - Rule bases: save stable Prolog rules once (e.g. chess move rules, legal axioms) and reference them by name from
execute_prologso the LLM only writes the situation-specific facts per call - 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 Setup
The MCP server exposes five tools — execute_prolog runs Prolog code written by the connected LLM, and four rule-base tools manage named, reusable Prolog modules. It does not call any external LLM API, so no API key is required.
Claude Desktop / Claude Code
Or, if prolog-reasoner is installed directly:
Docker (SWI-Prolog bundled)
Use Docker if you don't want to install SWI-Prolog locally:
Tool reference
execute_prolog(prolog_code, query, rule_bases=None, max_results=100, trace=False)
prolog_code— Prolog facts and rules (string)query— Prolog query to run, e.g."mortal(X)"(string)rule_bases— optional list of saved rule base names to prepend toprolog_code(in order). Use this to reuse stable domain rules across calls without re-sending themmax_results— cap the number of solutions returned (default 100)trace— whenTrue, attach a structured proof tree per solution tometadata.proof_trace. Opt-in sub-feature; has performance overhead and does not support CLP(FD), higher-order predicates, or assert/retract.
Returns a JSON object with success, output, query, error, and metadata.
On success, metadata includes execution_time_ms, result_count, truncated, and rule_bases_used. When rule bases were requested, rule_base_load_ms is also attached (disk I/O timing). On failure, metadata also includes error_category (one of syntax_error, undefined_predicate, unbound_variable, type_error, domain_error, evaluation_error, permission_error, timeout, trace_mechanism_error, unknown) and error_explanation — a natural-language hint for the connected LLM (or human) to decide how to fix the Prolog code.
Rule base tools — manage named, reusable Prolog modules under PROLOG_REASONER_RULES_DIR (defaults to ~/.prolog-reasoner/rules/). Names are restricted to [a-z0-9_-], length 1–64.
save_rule_base(name, content)— write or overwrite a rule base. Content is syntax-validated (parse-only) before the write; failures surface asRULEBASE_003. Returns{"success": true, "name": ..., "created": bool}wherecreatedistrueon first write,falseon overwrite. Files overmax_rule_sizeare rejected withRULEBASE_005.list_rule_bases()— return all saved rule bases withname,description, andtags. Metadata is extracted from leading% description:/% tags:comments in each file.get_rule_base(name)— return the raw Prolog source of a saved rule base.delete_rule_base(name)— remove a saved rule base.
For name/size/existence errors, the tools return {"success": false, "error": "...", "error_code": "RULEBASE_001"|"RULEBASE_002"|"RULEBASE_003"|"RULEBASE_005"} rather than raising. I/O failures (RULEBASE_004) are propagated as infrastructure errors.
Rule base conventions — start each rule base file with leading comments that double as list_rule_bases metadata:
Then reference from execute_prolog:
Rule bases also serve as the foundation for domain-specialized forks: ship a curated set (legal axioms, game rules, tax scenarios, etc.) bundled via BUNDLED_RULES_DIR as a ready-to-use reasoning package.
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)
Full NL→Prolog pipeline (requires LLM API key)
Configuration
All settings via environment variables (prefix PROLOG_REASONER_):
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:
Per-category breakdown:
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
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.
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:
- adamrybinski/prolog-mcp — Trealla WASM with save/load sessions
- umuro/prolog-mcp — layered KB with file-backed persistence
- vpursuit/model-context-lab — SWI-Prolog with security sandboxing
- dr3d/prolog-reasoning — neuro-symbolic memory with write-path safety
We're the spot-use option.
Development
License
MIT
Source: README.md at commit 3267ca0
Tools
0Version history
1- v0.2.1LatestSep 16, 2026
Score
50% of the applicable checks met
How complete this listing is, computed from the registry entry, the endpoint and public sources. Not a rating of the server and not a statement that it is safe or working today: reachability is a dated check, and no installs or reviews go into the score.
- Reached in the last 30 days25 pts
Keep the endpoint answering the MCP handshake; SourceWeft probes it every 30 days.
- Auth declared10 pts
Declare the credential headers in the registry entry, or keep the endpoint answering the probe so its auth can be classified.
- Tools listed15 pts
Answer tools/list without a credential, or ship a package that starts in a sandbox without one.
- DescriptionRequired15 pts
- Logo10 pts
- Documentation15 pts
- License10 pts