Skip to main content
Glama
achapla

jev-mcp

by achapla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to jev-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • laya-mcp

      PerryLink
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables typed decisions (yes/no, choice, score) with transparent preflight checks, honest confidence reporting, and health monitoring.
      65 npm
      Apache 2.0

    • jev-mcp

      IIXINGCHEN
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to submit a state and typed questions and receive structured judgments such as yes/no probabilities, named choices, and rubric scores, with no text generation or parsing.
      MIT

    • Jev MCP

      asimons81
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables structured yes/no, multiple-choice, and ordered-score judgments from supplied text and criteria, returning typed probabilities, selected labels, scores, and confidence. It exposes bounded decision tools without search, chat generation, arbitrary HTTP requests, or action execution.
      320 npm
      MIT

    • jev-flash-router

      Ravinder82
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to make fast, zero-output-token decisions by evaluating context, diffs, logs, or options through the OpenRouter Decisions API using TypeSafe Jev, returning calibrated probabilities for binary, categorical, or scoring questions.
      1
      20 npm
      3
      MIT

    • laya-mcp

      jerepaira
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local, LLM-free probabilistic decisions (choice, classification, scoring, yes/no) with real probabilities in 100+ languages, as a drop-in replacement for jev-local tools.
      4
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    evaluate_rules is clearly for batched rule evaluation, while ask_yes_no and ask_choice handle single ad-hoc questions. The overlap is minor—ask_yes_no and ask_choice are essentially specialized single-rule cases—but descriptions provide enough distinction.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names use snake_case with a consistent verb-first pattern: evaluate_rules, ask_yes_no, ask_choice, list_rules. The convention is predictable and readable throughout.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is well-scoped for a rule-based decision server: one for listing rules, one for batch evaluation, and two for single-question decisions. Each tool earns its place without bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers listing rules, evaluating multiple rules, and asking single yes/no or multiple-choice questions. Minor gaps exist (no rule creation/editing or open-ended question type), but core decision workflows are supported.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources