JevMCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to JevMCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables coding or reasoning agents to request structured judgments from TypeSafe's Jev model at decision points, including choices, scores, claim verification, and code reviews, with probabilities and confidence returned as data.5MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to obtain typed judgments from TypeSafe's Jev System One models, including yes/no probabilities, multiple-choice selections with distributions, and rubric-based scores, directly usable in code.51AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables frontier coding agents to delegate routine probabilistic judgments to TypeSafe Jev, providing calibrated triage signals for failures, attempts, completion, context ranking, findings, risk, and generic evidence-grounded questions.7MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables Claude Code agents to perform structured decision-making through TypeSafe Jev, supporting yes/no checks, route selection, scoring, and batched multi-question judgments with confidence values.1-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to make fast, zero-output-token decisions by evaluating context, diffs, logs, or options through the OpenRouter Decisions API using TypeSafe Jev, returning calibrated probabilities for binary, categorical, or scoring questions.1136 npm2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables Claude Code or any MCP client to ask TypeSafe's Jev for calibrated, typed judgments (probabilities, choices, scores) instead of prose, with local caching and cost tracking.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusing one tool with another. The tool's multiple question types (noul, choice, score) are clearly delineated within the one tool, so agents can disambiguate the intended use from the parameter descriptions.
The sole tool name 'jev_ask' follows a clean snake_case convention with a descriptive verb. As there is no other tool to compare against, no naming inconsistencies or mixed conventions exist.
At one tool, the server is on the low end of tool counts, but for the narrow purpose of classifier-based file questioning, a single comprehensive tool is reasonable. It slightly under-utilizes the typical 3-15 tool range, yet it does not feel excessively thin given its focused scope.
The single tool covers multiple question types, batching, and uncertainty handling, addressing the full lifecycle of querying files without needing additional operations. The documented limitations (weak at counting, math, dates, multi-step reasoning) are clearly stated, so there are no hidden gaps in the tool surface.