Skip to main content
Glama
Ravinder82

jev-flash-router

by Ravinder82
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to jev-flash-router

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • openrouter-jev-mcp

      ctmx
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to obtain probabilistic decisions from Jev AI via OpenRouter for classification, scoring, and validation, with tools like jev_check, jev_classify, jev_score, and jev_evaluate.
      5
      MIT

    • Jev MCP

      chungsubeen0
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      7
      MIT

    • jev-mcp

      minhgv
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides coding agents and CI with a typed decision layer that sends bounded state and questions to Jev, then returns deterministic actions for review, risk assessment, requirement checks, and verification.
      9
      MIT

    • askjev

      pZacca
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables agents to get fast, calibrated probabilistic answers from Jev (Typesafe AI) to yes/no, scale, or choice questions about provided material, without using a generative model.
      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

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of an agent confusing it with another. Its purpose is stated clearly and does not overlap with anything else in the set.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The single tool name uses a clear snake_case verb_noun format: evaluate_decision. With only one tool there is no broader naming pattern to compare against, so it cannot earn a full 5.

    Tool Count3/5

    One tool is acceptable for a narrowly scoped decision engine, but the surface feels thin for a server named as a 'router.' It is on the borderline: useful but unlikely to cover a real workflow by itself.

    Completeness3/5

    The core evaluation/probability function is present and well described, but there is no follow-up mechanism to apply the decision or inspect routing outcomes. The description implies integration with planning, yet the server stops at returning probabilities.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources