jev-paper-review-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| JEV_MODEL | No | Model name. | jev-latest |
| JEV_BASE_URL | No | Override for self-hosted / proxy. | Official endpoint |
| JEV_MCP_MOCK | No | 1 forces mock. | 0 |
| TYPESAFE_API_KEY | No | Required for real calls; blank falls back to mock. | |
| JEV_MCP_TIMEOUT_MS | No | Per-request timeout. | 30000 |
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_paperA | Academic paper-review scorer powered by Jev (System One decision model). Given a paper excerpt, returns calibrated ratings on soundness / novelty / clarity (ordinal scales) plus an overall verdict (accept / minor_revision / major_revision / reject) and a recommendation. Treat the verdict as advisory — always check |
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 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is zero ambiguity between tools. No other tools to confuse it with.
The single tool follows the verb_noun pattern with snake_case (review_paper), which is clear and consistent. No other tools to compare against, but the naming is predictable and conventional.
With only one tool, the server feels extremely thin for a paper-review MCP. Even niche servers typically need at least a few operations (e.g., scoring, retrieval, history). This is borderline trivial.
The server covers only the scoring action. Obvious gaps exist such as listing papers, retrieving previous reviews, or handling multiple paper submissions. The workflow appears incomplete, forcing agents to rely on external state.