decision-lite
Related Servers
Alternatives to decision-lite
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLets MCP clients ask typed questions — yes/no, choice, or score — about structured state, including images, and receive calibrated probabilities from System One decision models such as TypeSafe Jev and Cloudflare Clef. Supports TypeSafe, OpenRouter, and local providers selectable per request, with input validation and cost reporting.6347 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables local typed decision-making over MCP Streamable HTTP, running Laya and Von models to turn arbitrary state into choice, score, and yes/no answers with probabilities.3Do What The F*ck You Want To Public
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceExposes local MCP tools for typed, calibrated LLM decisions — gating risky actions, yes/no judging, classification, ordinal rating, and multi-question decisions in one pass. Runs on the model Devin's CLI already provides via ACP (or a fully offline local backend), so agents get calibrated confidence with no extra API key, no Ollama, and no waitlist.51 PyPI6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables MCP-speaking hosts to ask typed questions (yes/no, choice, score) and receive calibrated probabilities instead of prose, over a stdio transport. Runs offline by default with an explicitly disclosed, opt-in egress contract for live providers.66 npmApache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceProvides agents with MCP tools for typed probabilistic decisions—Choice, Noul, and Score—with calibrated probabilities and abstention, using local OpenAI-compatible models via LM Studio logprobs.41MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceProvides an MCP interface to the Laya decision model, enabling typed queries (yes/no, multiple choice, score) with preflight token-budget reporting, honest confidence calibration, and structured error handling.83 PyPI3Apache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools map cleanly to distinct phases: making a decision (evaluate), providing feedback (record_outcome), and inspecting calibration (decision_stats). There is no overlap in purpose and each has a clearly bounded role.
evaluate is a bare verb, record_outcome is verb_noun, and decision_stats is a noun phrase, so conventions are mixed. Each name is still readable and self-explanatory, but there is no single predictable pattern.
Three tools form a tight, complete decision-calibration loop with no filler. The count is well matched to the narrow stated purpose.
The evaluate/record_outcome/decision_stats cycle covers the core lifecycle of making, labeling, and auditing decisions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no way to list or retrieve past evaluate calls), but essential workflows are covered.