Skip to main content
Glama
Ayesha458

sure-but-wrong

by Ayesha458
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to sure-but-wrong

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • metrillm-mcp

      MetriLLM
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables benchmarking of local LLM models (performance and quality) and sharing results to a public leaderboard via MCP tools.
      6 npm
      8
      Apache 2.0

    • retrieval

      hcarrillo001
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Scores AI outputs for faithfulness, relevancy, and hallucination inside any MCP client, with custom metrics, golden sets, and run history with dashboards.
      Apache 2.0

    • AgentOps EvalBench MCP

      AbhinavVarma02
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables LLM evaluation and observability by uploading documents, building test sets, running RAG pipelines, and automatically scoring answers for groundedness, hallucination risk, retrieval quality, latency, and cost, with tools exposed to MCP-compatible clients.
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool maps to a distinct phase of the benchmark lifecycle: list_questions (inspect bank), ping_model (health check), start_run (execute), run_status (monitor), resume_run (retry), get_report (results), compare_runs (diff runs), export_run (dump data). There is no meaningful overlap between any pair.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All eight tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_questions, start_run, run_status, resume_run, get_report, compare_runs, export_run, ping_model). The convention is applied uniformly with no style drift.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is well-scoped for a benchmark harness, covering setup, execution, monitoring, recovery, and reporting without bloat. Every tool earns its place.

    Completeness4/5

    The lifecycle is well covered: inspect questions, verify the target model, launch a run, monitor, resume, report, compare, and export. Minor gaps remain, such as no cancel_run for a background run and no tool to enumerate available models/providers.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources