Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to askjev

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to offload yes/no, multiple-choice, and scoring questions to TypeSafe's Jev, returning compact confidence-scored answers to save tokens and improve speed.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to query files, logs, and search results through TypeSafe Jev's typed, probabilistic answers, so they retrieve only the needed conclusion instead of raw context. Supports classification, scoring, yes/no checks, extraction, page ranking, and injection screening.
      11
      467 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables frontier coding agents to delegate routine probabilistic judgments to TypeSafe Jev, providing calibrated triage signals for failures, attempts, completion, context ranking, findings, risk, and generic evidence-grounded questions.
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to obtain typed judgments from TypeSafe's Jev System One models, including yes/no probabilities, multiple-choice selections with distributions, and rubric-based scores, directly usable in code.
      5
      2
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables agents to query the TypeSafe Jev decision model for typed answers—yes/no, choice, and score questions—with calibrated probabilities, batched in a single request under a local context-budget guard.
      6
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.8/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or misselection. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and unique.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool name 'ask' is trivially consistent; there is no pattern to break or mix. The name accurately reflects its function.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool is on the borderline of being thin, but it is purpose-built for a narrow domain (querying a judgment model). The count is acceptable but could feel minimal for broader expectations.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool fully covers the intended domain: asking yes/no, choice, or scale questions, with built-in rubrics and confidence reporting. No obvious gaps in its stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues