Skip to main content
Glama
arunav25

jev-mcp

by arunav25
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to jev-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • mcp-jev

      Chrishow2
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to get machine-readable yes/no, choice, and score decisions from TypeSafe Jev, bridging fast classification to Cursor and other clients.
      MIT

    • jev-judge-mcp

      gecm0
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to consult TypeSafe's Jev through a judge tool, answering narrow typed questions with calibrated probabilities instead of prose.
      42 npm
      1
      MIT

    • use-jev

      silkyland
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      1
      MIT

    • Jev MCP

      resumocast
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to submit bounded semantic-uncertainty judgments to the pinned TypeSafe Jev API, with tools for yes/no, choice, and score evaluations plus optional evidence or context selection.
      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

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing its purpose with another tool. The tool's description clearly defines its unique role of evaluating content against typed questions and returning structured probabilities.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool named 'evaluate' cannot be inconsistent with anything else, and the name is a clear, verb-based descriptor that matches its function. No pattern mixing or naming conflicts exist to penalize.

    Tool Count2/5

    The server exposes only one tool for what appears to be a broad evaluation domain. The description suggests a wide range of uses, but one tool provides no supporting workflows, making the server feel too thin for its apparent scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool covers a single evaluation action, but the broader domain of evaluation likely includes question/template management, batch evaluation, or result history. As it stands, agents can perform isolated evaluations but have no way to manage or reuse evaluation setups, creating dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources