Skip to main content
Glama
HrishiKabra

voting-mcp

by HrishiKabra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to voting-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • genpark-agent-self-consistency

      Alpha-Park
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Aggregates multiple divergent LLM reasoning trajectories through majority voting and consensus scoring to produce high-confidence deterministic outputs without additional model calls. Plug into any MCP-compliant client to resolve agent tasks with sub-millisecond, zero-dependency execution.
      7
      -
    • Agent-Town by agenttown

      Agent-Townofficial

      agenttown
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A neutral verification court for AI tools that ranks MCP servers by executing them against ground truth and recording results. Enables agents to consult execution records, contribute verdicts, and challenge claims.
      Apache 2.0

    • MCP-Atlas

      Animesh-Eth
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A large-scale benchmark that evaluates AI agents' tool-use competency across 36 real MCP servers using a reproducible Docker sandbox and LLM-as-judge scoring.
      MIT
    • HumanJudge by humanjudge

      HumanJudgeofficial

      humanjudge
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Human-evaluation infrastructure for AI quality. 25,000+ blind human reviews by 200+ verified reviewers across 58 AI models — query the data via five MCP tools (get_model_scores, compare_models, get_flags, check_content, get_latest).
      2
      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

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools are distinct voting methods with clear descriptions. However, `aggregate_rule` duplicates the functionality of the per-rule tools, potentially causing confusion about which to use.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Names are all lowercase and based on voting methods, which is consistent. However, the pattern is not uniform: some are single words (e.g., `borda`) while others use underscores (e.g., `opinion_pool`), and `aggregate_rule` breaks the naming convention of referring to a specific rule.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 9 tools covering a variety of common voting rules plus a dispatch tool, the count is well-scoped for a voting MCP server. It is neither too sparse nor overly numerous.

    Completeness3/5

    The set includes major voting methods but lacks utility tools for managing ballots or providing rule descriptions. As a stateless tallying server, it covers core rules well but could be more complete with additional supporting tools.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources