A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceExposes bounded TypeSafe Jev/System One decision primitives as MCP tools, enabling agents to make choices, scores, yes/no judgments, and batched decisions over remote HTTPS with shared state.
MIT
TypeSafe MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to TypeSafe MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceExposes three stdio tools (jev_ask, jev_rank, jev_check) that return typed judgments—yes/no, choice, and score answers with calibrated probabilities—instead of prose. It runs on an offline mock by default, resolving a live TypeSafe or OpenRouter credential only when configured, and reports all egress on stderr.66 npmApache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables any MCP host to obtain typed judgments — yes/no, choice, and score — with calibrated probabilities instead of prose, exposed as three tools over stdio. It runs fully offline with synthetic answers by default, and only transmits state to TypeSafe or OpenRouter when live routing is explicitly configured, reporting exactly what leaves at startup.66 npmApache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables agent harnesses to make fast, confidence-aware tool selections using Jev, with planner fallback, hierarchical routing, and optional MCTS lookahead, exposed natively over MCP stdio.24MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables MCP-capable agents to run TypeSafe's Jev judgment model as typed yes/no, choice, and score tools, with calibrated probabilities, confidence thresholds, escalation for uncertain or non-judgment tasks, and an optional action gate that fails open.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceExposes three tools over MCP stdio that answer typed questions — yes/no, choice, and score — with calibrated probabilities instead of prose. Runs entirely offline by default, names every transmission before it happens, and only reaches a live Jev provider when credentials and provider settings are supplied.66 npmApache 2.0
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Scored across 9 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, reinforced by explicit DO NOT USE cross-references that map boundary cases to the correct tool. Even the broadest tool, evaluate, is positioned as the raw-answer fallback rather than a competitor to the specialized distribution, threshold, or routing tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tools all follow a consistent lowercase single-word imperative style, which is easy to predict and read. The only minor deviation is health, which is a noun rather than a verb, so the pattern is not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Nine tools is a well-scoped count for a typed evaluation and decision primitive library. Each tool represents a distinct decision mode, and none feel redundant, superficial, or missing.
Completeness5/5
The surface covers raw typed evaluation, classification, scoring, whole-object review, single and multi-claim verification, threshold gating, routing, and health checks. For the apparent purpose of safe, typed decision primitives, there are no significant gaps or dead ends.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues