jev-domain-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| JEV_MCP_MOCK | No | Set to '1' to force deterministic mock mode (no API key needed). Optional. | |
| TYPESAFE_API_KEY | No | API key for live Jev calls. Optional; without it the server runs in deterministic mock mode. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| review_patchA | Code-review gate powered by Jev (System One decision model). Given a git diff and optional context, returns a verdict (approve / request_changes / needs_discussion), a safety probability, a severity score, a calibrated confidence, and an action (auto_merge / human_review). Only execute auto_merge on high confidence. |
| screen_contentA | Content-moderation & classification gate powered by Jev. Given text, returns spam and toxicity probabilities, a category, a severity score, a calibrated confidence, and an action (allow / review / block). Low confidence routes to review; clear, severe violations route to block. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
review_patch and screen_content operate on entirely different inputs (git diffs vs. text) and produce different domain-specific verdicts. There is no realistic ambiguity about which tool to select for a given task.
Both tool names follow the same lowercase verb_noun pattern: review_patch and screen_content. The naming is concise, predictable, and clearly conveys the action being performed.
Two tools is at the low end of acceptable for an MCP server. Each tool is substantive, but the server feels thin for something labeled a 'domain' MCP and would benefit from additional related decision gates.
The two exposed gates are self-contained for their specific inputs, but the broader Jev decision-model domain is not fully mapped. There are no tools for configuration, audit feedback, or other content types, which could be notable gaps depending on the intended use.