Skip to main content
Glama
Renwang-Huang

TypeSafe MCP

Related Servers

Alternatives to TypeSafe MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables natural-language interaction with TypeSafe's Jev decision API, supporting mixed question calls, batch evaluation, model listing, and confidence or composite-score gates over stdio.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI tools to uniformly discover, inspect, and call tools, prompts, and resources from multiple upstream MCP servers through a small set of fixed MCP tools, over stdio or HTTP.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      5
      1
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes eleven typed decision tools—check, choose, score, judge, route, triage, guard, grep, rank, compact, and ask—so agents can make fast, branchable yes/no, option-pick, score, and filtering decisions on text via TypeSafe's Jev model.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables any Model Context Protocol-compatible host (Claude Desktop, Cherry Studio, Cline, MCP Inspector) to call 8 plug-and-play tools over stdio: hotspot ranking, TC3 signing, text chunking, date calculation, read-only SQLite queries, webpage text extraction, JWT decode/verify, and health checks.
      23 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-capable harnesses to apply TypeSafe/Jev's System One decision model through judgment primitives and task-shaped tools, with local event logging and Prometheus metrics for impact tracking.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Several tools occupy overlapping evaluative territory: evaluate, classify, score, and check all return probabilities or typed answers for bounded questions, and gate/review both produce pass/review/fail signals. The descriptions help but do not make the boundaries crisp enough for reliable tool selection.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names are almost uniformly single-word lowercase verbs (evaluate, classify, check, route, score, verify, gate, review), which is a consistent style. The noun 'health' is the one clear deviation from the verb pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    Nine tools is within a reasonable scope for a server, and each tool has a plausible purpose. The count feels slightly higher than necessary because some tools could likely be consolidated without losing functionality.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers a broad range of bounded evaluative tasks: raw typed answers, classification, probability checks, scoring, routing, verification, gating, and review. The main weakness is that the relationships between the overlapping evaluative tools are not structurally explicit, but no obvious critical operation is missing for the stated domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessNo issues