Skip to main content
Glama
wh131462
by wh131462

Related Servers

Alternatives to Boundary MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides Universal Ethical Framework (UEF) and Recursive Doubt Engine tools for analyzing decisions, assessing alignment, and generating insights for consciousness evolution.
      7
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides access to 27+ structured problem-solving frameworks and game-theoretic workflows for software development, project management, and operations research. Helps prevent analysis paralysis and scope creep by transforming open-ended challenges into systematic, time-boxed approaches with clear decision gates.
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables structured, iterative reasoning for complex problem-solving with features like confidence tracking, revision mechanisms, and branching support. Provides flexible validation and multiple output formats for systematic analysis and decision-making tasks.
      1
      34 npm
      72
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Provides 30+ unified reasoning operations including systematic thinking, mental models, debugging approaches, statistical analysis, interactive notebooks, and advanced problem-solving frameworks for enhanced decision-making and complex reasoning tasks.
      164 npm
      53
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables users to stress-test decisions and plans with structured contrarian analysis, surfacing blind spots, hidden assumptions, and failure scenarios through multiple modes such as counter, probe, redteam, and premortem.
      1
      39 npm
      2
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation1/5

    The two tools are essentially identical in purpose, both performing structured decision analysis on real-world problems. The only difference is output format (formatted text vs. JSON), which is insufficient to distinguish their core functionality. An agent would likely struggle to choose between them without arbitrary preference for output type.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern with clear, descriptive names. 'analyze_decision' and 'get_analysis_json' maintain the same structure and style, making them predictable and easy to understand within the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools that essentially duplicate functionality, the count feels too thin for a decision analysis engine. A more complete surface might include tools for different analysis phases (e.g., problem framing, constraint identification, strategy evaluation) rather than just output format variants.

    Completeness2/5

    The server claims to be a 'decision thinking engine' but offers only a single analysis operation in two output formats. There are obvious gaps: no tools for modifying analyses, comparing multiple decisions, tracking decision outcomes, or integrating external data—all expected in a comprehensive decision support system.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues