askjev
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TYPESAFE_API_KEY | Yes | Your Typesafe API key used to authenticate with the Jev API. |
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 |
|---|---|
| askA | Ask Jev, a fast non-generative judgment model, one or more questions about some material you already have. Use it for a quick second opinion, a classification, a rating, or a yes/no check instead of reasoning it out yourself or spawning a sub-agent. Write each question in plain language. Jev decides whether it is a yes/no question, a scale, or a choice:
Every answer carries probabilities and Jev's confidence, plus "routing" showing how the question was interpreted and how sure Jev was about that. Read the confidence: a low value means the material does not settle the question, so add context or decide another way. Requires a Typesafe API key. Set TYPESAFE_API_KEY in the environment of the askjev process. |
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
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or misselection. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and unique.
A single tool name 'ask' is trivially consistent; there is no pattern to break or mix. The name accurately reflects its function.
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.
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.