MCP.Market

TuringCorp MCP server

online · 100% uptime
by mcp.turingcorp.net·net.turingcorp.mcp/decider·v1.0.3
No reviews yet

A decision model for the calls that don't have a right answer. The better option, with a reason.

A85/100grade A
Write a reviewRun it
What users say
No reviews yet
Be the first
Safety scan
A85/100

full report

Adoption
Growing

0 stars

Reviews

Write one

Nobody has reviewed TuringCorp yet.

If you have run it, two minutes of your experience saves the next person an afternoon.

TuringCorp tools (2)

write = sends, deletes, buys or posts
  • decideFree

    Use this when you must choose between two concrete options and both are defensible - two plans, two drafts, two diagnoses, two vendors - and you have no objective way to pick. Not for: more than two options; anything an objective rule settles (a spec, a test, a price, a document); factual lookup; paths that must answer in seconds; high-stakes irreversible calls without review. Fill it in: state task neutrally, without leaning toward either side; give one concrete plan per option - never bundle alternatives into a single one ("go indoors or postpone"); keep the two sides comparable in length. Returns the decision inline: betterOption ("option_A" or "option_B"), confidence (e.g. "76.7%"), reason and job_id, all in the same tool result. There is nothing to poll and nothing to fetch afterwards. Reserve 180-300 seconds: this is a long call, and the timeout is a client/host setting, not a parameter you pass. If the call is cut off, do NOT call again - a retry is a new paid call. Retrieve it instead with the get_result tool (same job_id): read-only, free, and no credential of your own needed; with no job_id it lists the ids for your credential. A host that declares the io.modelcontextprotocol/tasks extension can use tasks/get instead. The confidence is the point: it is calibrated, not decorative. On both published benchmarks accuracy rises with it - JudgeBench 99.6% in the 90%+ band down to 67.7% below 70%; the harder ContextualJudgeBench 83.3% down to 55.4% - so route on it: act on a high value, review or escalate a low one, instead of trusting a bare pick. Tables, sample sizes and method: https://api.turingcorp.net Judged by an independent panel, not by a model grading its own output. Read it as a reference, not an instruction, a result, or a prediction; set your own threshold, and apply your own review policy for high-stakes or irreversible decisions. Auth: Agent Pass as `Authorization: Bearer <pass>` (issued at https://agent-pass.turingcorp.net, valid 7 days; each decision is a paid call). On invalid_credential, sign in there and re-roll. Errors: a credential problem is rejected before the call - HTTP 401 with WWW-Authenticate; a business failure (e.g. insufficient balance) comes back as a tool result with isError true plus a second JSON block {error, http_status, action_url, message}, where http_status is the upstream status (the tool call itself is HTTP 200).

  • get_resultFree

    Use this to retrieve the result of an earlier TuringCorp tool call by its job_id - for example a call that was cut off by a client timeout, or one whose id you were given. Retrieval is read-only and free: it starts no new work and costs nothing, so it is always safe to retry. With job_id: that call's status, and once it has finished the same payload the call would have returned inline. Without job_id: the ids available to your credential (7 days). If a call was cut off, retrieve it here instead of calling again - a retry is a new paid call. A job that is not yours and a job that does not exist are answered identically, on purpose. If your client declares the io.modelcontextprotocol/tasks extension, tasks/get reaches the same job.

Public scan report

scanner v0.1.10 · 2026-11-02 · same rubric, same numbers if you re-run it

1 low
  • –Code scanremote-only server, no package to scann/a
  • Live reliabilityremote reachable in 529ms20/20
  • Tool poisoning2 tool descriptions checked13/15
  • Auth qualityAPI key sent as a header8/15
  • Maintenancelast push 17 days ago15/15
  • Maintainer identityendpoint served from the registry-verified namespace domain8/10

Findings (1)

  • lowUnusually long tool description (over 2,000 characters)poison.long-description
    tool decide: …Use this when you must choose between two concrete options and both are defensible - two plans, two drafts, two diagnoses, two vendors - and you have no objective way to pick. Not for: more than two options; anything an objective rule settles (a spec, a test, a price, a document); factual lookup; paths that must answer in seconds; high-stakes irreversible calls without review. Fill it in: state task neutrally, without leaning toward either side; give one concrete plan per option - never bundle alternatives into a single one ("go indoors or postpone"); keep the two sides comparable in length. Returns the decision inline: betterOption ("option_A" or "option_B"), confidence (e.g. "76.7%"), reason and job_id, all in the same tool result. There is nothing to poll and nothing to fetch afterwards. Reserve 180-300 seconds: this is a long call, and the timeout is a client/host setting, not a parameter you pass. If the call is cut off, do NOT call again - a retry is a new paid call. Retrieve it instead with the get_result tool (same job_id): read-only, free, and no credential of your own needed; with no job_id it lists the ids for your credential. A host that declares the io.modelcontextprotocol/tasks extension can use tasks/get instead. The confidence is the point: it is calibrated, not decorative. On both published benchmarks accuracy rises with it - JudgeBench 99.6% in the 90%+ band down to 67.7% below 70%; the harder ContextualJudgeBench 83.3% down to 55.4% - so route on it: act on a high value, review or escalate a low one, instead of trusting a bare pick. Tables, sample sizes and method: https://api.turingcorp.net Judged by an independent panel, not by a model grading its own output. Read it as a reference, not an instruction, a result, or a prediction; set your own threshold, and apply your own review policy for high-stakes or irreversible decisions. Auth: Agent Pass as `Authorization: Bearer <pass>` (issued at https://agent-pass.turingcorp.net, valid 7 days; each decision is a paid call). On invalid_credential, sign in there and re-roll. Errors: a credential problem is rejected before the call - HTTP 401 with WWW-Authenticate; a business failure (e.g. insufficient balance) comes back as a tool result with isError true plus a second JSON block {error, http_status, action_url, message}, where http_status is the upstream status (the tool call itself is HTTP 200).…
Overall 85/100. Components that don't apply are left out of the denominator. Any critical finding is an F.RubricAppeal a findingJSON

How TuringCorp compares

Against every graded AI and agents MCP server, from our own scans and uptime checks. Updated after each scan run.

Safety score
85/100
higher than 73% of 4,460 AI and agents servers
Tools
2
the typical AI and agents server has 6
Tools that change things
0%
typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break
Uptime
100%
of our recent checks; the typical remote AI and agents server answers 100%
Response time
234 ms
faster than 59% of 2,331 AI and agents servers

What its tools let an agent do: 2 read

Release history: 3 versions in the registry since 2026-09-22, latest 2026-09-26, typically one every 3 days.

Install TuringCorp in Claude Code, Cursor or VS Code

claude mcp add --transport http decider https://mcp.turingcorp.net/mcp
Add to Cursor

What the publisher says

From the TuringCorp repository's README, as published. We do not edit it. Read it on GitHub

TuringCorp — MCP server

A decision model for the calls that don't have a right answer. Your agent has two defensible options and has to pick one. Send both: a panel of models judges them together and returns the better one, how far apart it judged them (a calibrated confidence), and why.

  • Endpoint (canonical): https://mcp.turingcorp.net/mcp
  • Aliases: https://mcp.turingcorp.net/ and https://mcp.turingcorp.net/mcp/
  • Health: https://mcp.turingcorp.net/healthz
  • Transport: Streamable HTTP, stateless (no session, no Durable Object). GET /mcp → 405 is normal.
  • Protocol: MCP 2026-07-28 (modern) and 2025-06-18 (legacy) — one route serves both.
  • Discovery methods (server/discover, tools/list) need no credentials — directory scanners can read the full tool list unauthenticated, by design.

Making a decision: decide

A successful call returns the decision inline. jobid, betterOption, confidence and reason all arrive in the same tool result — there is nothing to poll and nothing to fetch afterwards. The jobid is only for the case where the call never came back (timeout, dropped connection, client gave up waiting).

confidence is this service's own judgement of how far apart the two options were — a reference for your decision-making, not an instruction, not a result, and not a prediction of how the choice turns out. As a rough reading: ≥90% clearly apart · 80–90% apart, less clearly · 70–80% a closer call · <70% close to evenly matched. These ranges are descriptive only. Choose your own threshold for your own use case; for high-stakes or irreversible decisions apply your own review policy. Observed accuracy for each range, and how it was measured, is published at — that page is the authority on the bands and their measured accuracy.

⚠️ idempotentHint: false is an honest declaration: a retried call is a new call. Record the jobid the result returns — a decision you have already paid for can be collected for 7 days with the same credential (GET https://api.turingcorp.net/v1/jobs?jobid=; without the id, GET https://api.turingcorp.net/v1/jobs lists the job ids for that credential). Retrieve instead of retrying.

When not to use it

  • More than two options. It compares exactly A and B — there is no third slot, and it will not rank a list.
  • Anything you can compute or verify. A spec, a test, a price, a document: if something objective decides it, use that. This is for choices where no objective rule does.
  • Factual questions. It picks between two candidates; it does not look anything up.
  • Speed-critical paths. A decision is a long call and a paid one. Do not put it behind a request that has to answer in seconds.
  • High-stakes irreversible calls without review. Route on the confidence and keep your own review policy.

How to fill the three arguments

Shortened. The full README is on GitHub.

Nothing above is checked by us. What we check is on the safety report.

TuringCorp: common questions

Is TuringCorp MCP server safe?
Yes, by our scan: it is graded A (85/100). Read the TuringCorp safety report
How do I install TuringCorp?
It runs remotely at mcp.turingcorp.net. Add it to Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code or Claude Desktop with the snippets above, or call it through the mcp.market gateway without installing anything.
Does TuringCorp need an API key?
Yes. The registry entry asks for Authorization.
Is TuringCorp maintained?
The last commit was 19 days ago (2026-10-16). The latest release is v1.0.3.
Is TuringCorp up?
100% of our last 28 checks got an answer. We check remote servers about four times a day.
What can I use instead of TuringCorp?
Servers from other publishers that do the same job: CHAP Coordinator MCP server, Ausca MCP server and AKShare MCP server.
How does TuringCorp compare with other AI and agents MCP servers?
safety score 85/100 (higher than 73% of 4,460 AI and agents servers); tools 2 (the typical AI and agents server has 6); tools that change things 0% (typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break). Full comparison.

Alternatives to TuringCorp

Same job from other publishers: the closest match first, then the best rated.

  • CHAP Coordinator
    Auditable records of human decisions over AI agent work. Approvals, edits, overrides, escalations.
    A
  • Ausca
    Pay-per-call APIs and MCP services for agents, no accounts or keys, with verifiable receipts.
    A
  • AKShare
    Let a model explore AKShare's 1000+ China market data functions on its own — search, inspect, call
    A