A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceProvides agents with fast, typed, calibrated decision tools for classification, scoring, yes/no checks, and gating risky tool calls.
5
1,206 npm
MIT
layajev-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to layajev-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides coding agents with typed classification, yes/no checks, scoring, ranking, and question-answering tools that return calibrated probabilities for fast, reliable decisions.9MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables agents to verify claims against cited evidence, screen content for prompt injection and relevance before reading it, and rank candidates by meaning, all with calibrated probability verdicts.115,780 npm360MIT
jevbook MCPofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to fact-check claims, conduct verified research, make typed decisions with calibrated probabilities, and scan token risks through a hosted server with no API key required.MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables calibrated System-1 routing decisions for MCP servers, tools, and agent profiles via YAML policies, returning choice probabilities in a single forward pass without generation or hallucination.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables LLM agents to make fast semantic decisions by choosing one of 2–16 options with probabilities, via tools for single and batch classification.MIT
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: backend_status diagnoses engine availability, decide handles general ambiguous choices, decide_many batches independent questions, triage_options narrows large option sets, and judge handles yes/no risk checks. The descriptions emphasize when to use each, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names use snake_case and are concise, but they mix verbs (decide, judge) and nouns (backend_status, triage_options). The pattern is mostly verb-driven, with backend_status being the outlier as a status query, but the style is consistent and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is well-scoped for a decision-support server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the decision lifecycle (status, single decision, batch, triage, binary risk), and none feels redundant or missing.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core decision-making workflow: checking engine availability, making single or batched decisions, handling large option sets, and binary risk assessment. Minor gaps like a history or explanation tool could be added, but the current set is functionally complete for its stated purpose.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues