Skip to main content
Glama
PyModel
by PyModel

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
JEV_PROVIDERNoProvider selection. 'auto' uses the first configured credential in order: typesafe, openrouter, cloudflare, compatible.typesafe
JEV_MCP_MODELNoModel identifier, e.g., jev-1.13.0.
TYPESAFE_API_KEYYesAPI key for the TypeSafe provider. Required when using the default provider (or when JEV_PROVIDER is 'typesafe' or 'auto' and no other provider credential is configured).
JEV_MCP_TRANSPORTNoTransport protocol. The HTTP transport is experimental; when enabled, the server binds to 127.0.0.1:8000 by default.stdio

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{
  "listChanged": false
}
prompts
{
  "listChanged": false
}
resources
{
  "subscribe": false,
  "listChanged": false
}
experimental
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
jev_verifyA

Check each claim against provided evidence text with TypeSafe Jev. Returns per claim: verdict (verified | contradicted | unsupported), full probability distribution, confidence, and whether the verdict stands on its own (auto) or needs human review. Pattern: docs.typesafe.ai/cookbooks/citation_check. Pass reports, PR descriptions, or agent briefs as claims and their cited sources, diffs, or documents as evidence.

jev_screenA

Judge fetched or external text with TypeSafe Jev before an agent reads it: probability it contains instructions aimed at an AI agent (prompt injection), whether it has substantive content, and (when a purpose is given) whether it is relevant to the task. Returns a recommendation: pass | review | block | skip. Pattern: docs.typesafe.ai/cookbooks/llm_guardrails.

jev_findA

Rank candidates against a plain-language query with TypeSafe Jev — no embeddings needed. One Choice scores every candidate id by how well it answers the query, plus a Noul checks whether any candidate addresses the query at all (so a confident 'top hit' cannot masquerade as an answer). Pattern: docs.typesafe.ai/cookbooks/semantic_find. Use for 'which file/note/line covers X' across up to 250 candidates.

jev_classifyA

Assign each item to one class from a shared catalog with TypeSafe Jev, in one batched request: the class catalog is sent once and every item becomes an independent Choice question. Returns per item: the chosen class, the full distribution, confidence, winner-to-runner-up margin, and an auto-versus-review decision. Auto requires both a high top probability (default 0.85) and a clear margin (default 0.50); everything else is flagged for review. Include a manual_review class in the catalog if you want an explicit escape hatch; the tool never invents one.

jev_decideA

One unresolved, bounded decision where semantic judgment over supplied evidence could change your plan: implementation alternatives, product tradeoffs with known preferences, workflow selection. Supply 2-6 candidates, evidence, and explicit priorities. Jev returns a Choice distribution over the candidates plus escape hatches (ask_user / investigate / none), and a per-candidate per-requirement supported / contradicted / unknown judgment for each optional requirement, all in one request. One call per unchanged decision; do not repeat a call to obtain a more pleasing answer. Use source inspection, tests, the user, or a reasoning model for open-ended research, routine choices, correctness proofs, or predicting user consent. High probability is not proof.

jev_rerankA

Rerank candidates against a query with TypeSafe Jev: one independent relevance probability per candidate, all in a single request, then sorted by score. Unlike jev_find (which picks one best answer), rerank scores every candidate so the full ordering survives. TypeSafe's rerank cookbook reports that on the CLERC benchmark this pattern lifted top-1 from 5% to 18% and top-10 from 38% to 62% (docs.typesafe.ai/cookbooks). Use for retrieval ordering, dedup triage, or feed ranking across up to 250 candidates.

jev_compareA

Judge the relation between two passages with TypeSafe Jev: same_fact, contradicts, or different_facts, with the full probability distribution, confidence, and an auto-versus-review decision. Optionally supply aspects (price, date, method, …) and each gets an independent per-aspect judgment in the same single request. Use for source reconciliation, changelog-vs-code drift, or merge sanity checks. The request supplies no evidence beyond the two passages, so a same_fact verdict means they agree with each other, not that they are true.

jev_extractA

Extract structured fields from a document with TypeSafe Jev as the picker, not the generator: your regex finds candidate substrings in code, Jev chooses which candidate is the field's true value, and the result is returned verbatim — never model-generated text. Fields with zero regex matches never reach the model (not_found); if no field has matches, no API call is made. Ambiguous picks are flagged for review. Use for prices, dates, version numbers, IDs, and anything with a recognizable shape; keep documents bounded.

jev_reviewA

Score a proposed diff against the request with TypeSafe Jev before the task is called done. Returns 0..2 rubric scores for correctness, spec match, test gap, and blast radius (the last two lower the weighted composite), a safe_to_apply probability, and an auto | review | escalate action. Auto requires safe_to_apply and min score confidence at auto_accept and the composite at composite_floor; truncated or malformed input never returns auto. Does not apply the patch or run tests. Use jev_gate to also verify completion claims against evidence in the same call.

jev_gateA

Review a proposed patch and verify completion claims against supplied evidence in one TypeSafe Jev call. Auto only when the patch review is accepted and every claim is verified at or above auto_accept. Unsupported claims require review; confident contradictions, unknown confidence, or low confidence escalate. The request and claims are assertions to check, never proof; put supporting diff excerpts and test logs in evidence. Evidence is capped at 16 items and 200,000 characters in aggregate. Does not run tests or apply changes. Use jev_review for a patch without claims, jev_verify for claims without a patch review.

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored across 10 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct verb and purpose: verify claims, screen for injection, find best match, classify, decide, rerank, compare, extract, review, and gate. Even similar tools like jev_find and jev_rerank are clearly differentiated (one picks a single best, the other orders all), and jev_review vs jev_gate are explicitly separated by the presence of claim verification.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'jev_' prefix with a lowercase descriptive verb (verify, screen, find, classify, decide, rerank, compare, extract, review, gate). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy for an agent to infer function from the name.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a distinct capability within the Jev evaluation domain, and none feel redundant or unnecessary. The count is appropriately scoped for the server's purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of evaluation tasks: claim verification, prompt-injection screening, semantic search, classification, decision-making, reranking, pairwise comparison, structured extraction, patch review, and gated review with claim verification. Cross-references between tools (e.g., using jev_gate for patches with claims, jev_review without) indicate a well-thought-out and complete surface with no obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues