Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to jev

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables local typed decision-making over MCP Streamable HTTP, running Laya and Von models to turn arbitrary state into choice, score, and yes/no answers with probabilities.
      3
      Do What The F*ck You Want To Public
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that answers typed noul/choice/score questions about a given state with probability distributions and confidence, for routing, escalation, and gating decisions. It runs on pluggable backends (local Needle 3 or Laya models, or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint) and logs every decision so recorded ground truth can be used to track calibration.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Exposes local MCP tools for typed, calibrated LLM decisions — gating risky actions, yes/no judging, classification, ordinal rating, and multi-question decisions in one pass. Runs on the model Devin's CLI already provides via ACP (or a fully offline local backend), so agents get calibrated confidence with no extra API key, no Ollama, and no waitlist.
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables agents and services to ask small decision models typed questions about text, JSON, images, or video, returning labels, scores, or yes/no answers over MCP tools or a Jev-compatible HTTP API.
      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

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. The tool's single responsibility is clear from its description.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    With only one tool, there are no naming inconsistencies to evaluate. The name 'decide' is a simple, verb-based descriptor matching its function.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool feels thin for a server, even though it supports multiple decision types internally. This falls at the low end of the borderline range.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool covers yes/no, choice, and score decisions, with evidence and file handling. Minor gaps include lack of server configuration or status inspection, but core decision functionality is well covered.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues