jev-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to jev-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides 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
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.31Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes 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
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAn 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 npm3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables running Jev AI typed decisions from any MCP client, returning choices, scores, or yes/no with calibrated probabilities.3159 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.