Skip to main content
Glama
Afloat16

jev-mcp

by Afloat16

Related Servers

Alternatives to jev-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-capable agents to run TypeSafe's Jev judgment model as typed yes/no, choice, and score tools, with calibrated probabilities, confidence thresholds, escalation for uncertain or non-judgment tasks, and an optional action gate that fails open.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides MCP tools that wrap Jev's finite typed judgments to give agents a semantic decision-control layer for task routing, pre-execution risk gating, and completion verification, keeping final execution authority in code.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP hosts to query Jev's typed decision model—yes/no, choice, and score—with calibrated probabilities, while defaulting to an offline mock and disclosing all egress unless explicitly enabled.
      31
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes bounded TypeSafe Jev/System One decision primitives as MCP tools, enabling agents to make choices, scores, yes/no judgments, and batched decisions over remote HTTPS with shared state.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes eleven typed decision tools—check, choose, score, judge, route, triage, guard, grep, rank, compact, and ask—so agents can make fast, branchable yes/no, option-pick, score, and filtering decisions on text via TypeSafe's Jev model.
      134 npm
      3
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct decision scope: jev_gate handles atomic yes/no gates, jev_decide handles bounded multi-alternative decisions, jev_route handles routing among fixed paths, and jev_risk_score produces risk levels. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, so an agent can reliably select the right tool without overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the jev_ prefix and use snake_case, which is predictable and readable. However, the suffixes mix verbs and nouns (decide, route vs. gate, risk_score), so the pattern is mostly rather than perfectly uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is well-scoped for a focused advisory second-opinion server. Each tool covers a distinct decision category, and none appears redundant or trivial.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the main advisory decision types: binary gate, bounded choice, routing, and risk scoring. Minor gaps exist around explaining or calibrating second opinions, but agents can work around them within the stated domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues