Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to agent-eval

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Deterministic time-series statistics for AI agents. This MCP server gives any LLM agent unit-tested statistical tools — anomaly detection, changepoint detection, seasonal decomposition, stationarity/trend tests, data-quality audits, baseline forecasts — with schema-validated structured output and no arbitrary code execution.
      17
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that diagnoses RAG pipeline regression by detecting which failure modes (e.g., retrieval miss, hallucination) significantly regressed, not just score drops, using statistical methods to avoid false alarms.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server that lets coding agents test AI agents. Create YAML test cases, snapshot golden baselines, check for regressions, and generate visual reports all from inside Claude Code or any MCP-compatible tool. Works with LangGraph, CrewAI, OpenAI, Claude, Mistral, and any HTTP API.
      10
      114 npm
      2,050 PyPI
      140
      Apache 2.0
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes causal inference methods (difference-in-differences, synthetic control, propensity matching, and assumption checks) as callable tools, enabling AI agents to run deterministic statistical analyses instead of computing them inline.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A local MCP server that provides tools for AI coding agents to execute, evaluate, and diff regression tests for LLM agents.
      4 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.7/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap. The single tool has a clear, well-defined purpose (running a CLI comparison).

    Naming Consistency4/5

    With only one tool, the naming is internally consistent, but the name 'run' is generic and does not convey the tool's statistical comparison purpose. It follows no distinctive pattern, but there are no deviations to penalize heavily.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool is on the thin side for a server, even one with a narrow purpose. While the tool fully addresses the comparison task, the lack of any supplementary tools (e.g., for generating scores or listing subcommands) makes the server feel minimal.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool covers the core need—comparing two sets of scores and returning a statistical verdict. The description explicitly scopes it to comparison only, and within that scope it is complete. However, it relies on the CLI to potentially expose other subcommands (via --help), so there could be untapped functionality, leaving a minor gap.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive