Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-decision-lab Help me decide between Postgres and DynamoDB for our backend."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for structured decision-making — weighted decision matrices, criteria scoring, sensitivity analysis and a defensible recommendation.
LLMs are good at listing pros and cons and then picking whatever "feels" right. That reasoning is opaque, unstable, and impossible to audit: change one adjective in the prompt and the answer flips. mcp-decision-lab is a thinking tool — the model uses it to structure its own reasoning as an explicit weighted decision matrix. Every score requires a written rationale, weights are normalized and transparent, and the final analyze step does real math: exact (closed-form, not brute-force) sensitivity analysis that tells you which criterion weight would flip the winner and at what value — so the recommendation comes with a robustness verdict instead of vibes.
Related MCP server: mcpdeployment
Tool | Arguments | Returns |
|
| New |
|
| The recorded cell, remaining missing cells, next step |
|
| Full matrix: raw scores, effective scores, weighted scores, per-option totals, rationales, missing cells |
|
| Ranking + margin, per-criterion sensitivity (exact flip weight, direction, new winner, decisive flag), strengths/weaknesses per option, robustness verdict ( |
| — | All sessions with status: |
Criteria where a high raw score is bad (cost, risk, complexity) take "higher_is_better": false — the effective score becomes 10 - score automatically.
flowchart TD
A[start_decision<br/>question + options + weighted criteria] --> B[weights normalized to sum 1.0<br/>session dec-xxxx persisted to disk]
B --> C[score_option x N<br/>one cell = option x criterion,<br/>score 0-10 + mandatory rationale]
C -->|cells missing| C
C -->|matrix complete| D[get_matrix<br/>review raw / weighted scores]
D --> E[analyze]
E --> F[ranking + margin<br/>weighted totals]
E --> G["sensitivity analysis<br/>closed-form flip weight per criterion:<br/>solve gap(w') = w'·d + (1-w')·r = 0"]
E --> H[strengths / weaknesses<br/>best and worst criterion per option]
F --> I[robustness verdict<br/>robust vs fragile under ±50% weight shifts]
G --> I
H --> I
I --> J[defensible recommendation]The sensitivity math. With normalized weights, changing criterion c's weight from w to w′ (renormalizing the others proportionally) makes every option's total linear in w′. For the winner A vs a challenger B the gap is gap(w′) = w′·d + (1−w′)·r, where d is their effective-score difference on c and r is their weight-scaled difference on everything else. Solving gap(w′) = 0 gives the exact flip weight w* = r/(r−d) — reported only if a region of [0, 1] exists where the challenger strictly wins. If no ±50% relative change to any single weight flips the winner, the verdict is robust; otherwise fragile, naming the criteria the decision hinges on.
No install needed — uvx fetches and runs it:
Claude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"decision-lab": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcp-decision-lab"]
}
}
}Claude Code:
claude mcp add decision-lab -- uvx mcp-decision-labPrefer a permanent install? pip install mcp-decision-lab, then use mcp-decision-lab as the command.
Sessions persist as JSON in ~/.mcp-decision-lab/decisions.json (override the directory with the DECISION_LAB_DIR environment variable).
User: Help me pick a database for the new SaaS backend — Postgres, MongoDB or DynamoDB. Cost matters most, then scalability, then how well the team knows it.
The model starts a session:
start_decision(
question="Which database should we use for the new SaaS backend?",
options=["Postgres", "MongoDB", "DynamoDB"],
criteria=[
{"name": "cost", "weight": 0.5, "higher_is_better": False},
{"name": "scalability", "weight": 0.3},
{"name": "team-familiarity", "weight": 0.2},
],
)
# → {"decision_id": "dec-34b5", "cells_total": 9,
# "next_step": "Score each option against each criterion using score_option ..."}Then scores all 9 cells, each with a rationale:
score_option("dec-34b5", "Postgres", "cost", 3,
"Managed Postgres (RDS/Neon) is cheap and predictable at our scale")
score_option("dec-34b5", "DynamoDB", "scalability", 10,
"Effectively unlimited managed horizontal scale")
score_option("dec-34b5", "DynamoDB", "team-familiarity", 4,
"Only one engineer knows single-table design patterns")
# ... 6 more cells ...
# → {"missing_cells": [], "next_step": "Matrix complete — call analyze('dec-34b5') ..."}And analyzes:
analyze("dec-34b5"){
"ranking": [
{"rank": 1, "option": "Postgres", "total": 7.1},
{"rank": 2, "option": "DynamoDB", "total": 5.8},
{"rank": 3, "option": "MongoDB", "total": 5.6}
],
"winner": "Postgres",
"margin": 1.3,
"sensitivity": [
{"criterion": "cost", "weight": 0.5, "decisive": true,
"flip": {"flip_weight": 0.1176, "direction": "decrease",
"new_winner": "DynamoDB", "within_50pct_band": false}},
{"criterion": "scalability", "weight": 0.3, "decisive": true,
"flip": {"flip_weight": 0.4717, "direction": "increase",
"new_winner": "DynamoDB", "within_50pct_band": false}},
{"criterion": "team-familiarity", "weight": 0.2, "decisive": false, "flip": null}
],
"decisive_criteria": ["cost", "scalability"],
"robustness": "robust",
"recommendation": "Choose Postgres (7.1 weighted) over DynamoDB (5.8); margin 1.3. Postgres is strongest on 'team-familiarity' (9/10) and weakest on 'scalability' (6/10). The result is robust: no ±50% relative change to any single criterion weight changes the winner. (Extreme shifts could still flip it: 'cost' would have to decrease from 0.5 to 0.1176 for DynamoDB to win; 'scalability' would have to increase from 0.3 to 0.4717 for DynamoDB to win.)"
}Model (to user): Postgres wins at 7.1 weighted vs DynamoDB's 5.8, and the result is robust: no reasonable (±50%) shift in any single weight changes the winner. It would take valuing scalability at ~0.47 instead of 0.3 — or cost dropping below ~0.12 — for DynamoDB to overtake. If you genuinely expect hockey-stick scale, revisit; otherwise Postgres is the defensible choice.
git clone https://github.com/AleBrito124356/mcp-decision-lab
cd mcp-decision-lab
pip install -e ".[dev]"
python -m pytestTests exercise mcp_decision_lab/core.py only and run without the mcp package installed. To run the server straight from a source checkout: python -m mcp_decision_lab.server.
Part of a family of small, dependency-light MCP servers:
mcp-devils-advocate — stress-test a claim: devil's advocate, premortem, assumption audits
mcp-secret-sentinel — scan code for exposed secrets, always redacted
mcp-git-historian — churn hotspots, blame summaries, bus factor
mcp-memory-vault — persistent memory with SQLite FTS5 search
MIT
This server cannot be deployed
The TuringCorp MCP server. Its decide tool judges which of two defensible options is better.
MCP server for VC pitch-deck scoring, thesis-fit matching, and deal-flow management.
Hybrid human + AI expertise for faster, trusted answers and decisions via MCP Server.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.