Skip to main content

Tool / MCP routing by decision model

The shipped tool router asks a generative model for {servers: string[]} on a 15-second budget. That shape cannot express uncertainty — a server is in the list or it is not, and the only recourse for a model that is unsure is to include it. A decision model instead asks one calibrated yes/no question per server, in a single round trip of about 400ms and $0.00002, and each answer comes back with a real probability rather than a name that either did or didn't make a list.

The degradation contract. selectServersByDecision() is used only when a decision provider is configured; hosts never wire decideFn by hand — it is bound automatically wherever tool routing resolves, using the same tryDecide() that returns null on any failure or absent configuration. No decision provider, a failed call, fewer than two candidate servers, or an answer set that would drop nothing — any of these fall straight through to the existing generative router, unchanged.

import { NeuroLink } from "@juspay/neurolink";

const nl = new NeuroLink({
  toolRouting: {
    enabled: true,
    minDropConfidence: 0.6, // default
  },
});

One question per server​

Each routable server gets its own boolean question, built from its description (or, absent one, its tool names):

instructions: The request needs the "github" server, which can read and write GitHub issues.
criteria.true:  Carrying out the request involves reading and writing GitHub issues.
criteria.false: The request is about something else; nothing it asks for involves reading and writing GitHub issues.

A server is excluded only on a confident false — minDropConfidence defaults to 0.6. undefined (unanswered, malformed, or too close to a coin flip) and a confident true both keep the server. This is the same asymmetry as the classifier's upgrade/downgrade bars: keeping an unneeded server costs a few hundred tokens of tool definitions; dropping a needed one breaks the turn outright, because the model can never call a tool it was never shown and has no way to ask for it back.

Two size guards bound the request: at most 200 servers are asked about in one batch (MAX_SERVERS), and the query text sent as state is capped at 10,000 characters. Servers past the cap are never asked about and are therefore always kept — a server that was not offered to the model must never be silently dropped by its own absence from the question set.

The wording that made this work: a measured A/B result​

The first phrasing tried was the obvious one: "answering this request will require calling at least one tool from this server," with false meaning "this server is unrelated, OR the request needs no tool at all." Measured against a 10-request × 5-server labelled set, it separated correctly but weakly — unrelated servers averaged p = 0.31 and reached as high as 0.80, so at the 0.6 drop bar only 12 of 39 unneeded servers were actually dropped.

Three changes fixed it: naming the server explicitly, asking in the present tense about what carrying out the request involves rather than what "will require," and splitting the bundled false criterion (which was really two separate claims joined by "or") into one single claim. That moved unrelated servers to a mean of p = 0.03 with a maximum of 0.35 — 37 of 39 dropped at the same 0.6 bar, still with zero wrong drops.

The lesson generalises past this one question: a decision model reads literally, and an "or" in a criterion is two questions wearing one coat. Each half of a compound criterion pulls the answer toward the middle whenever only one half is true, which is exactly the muddy, hard-to-gate signal the first version produced.

What this is bad at​

  • It reasons about servers, not individual tools. The unit of decision is a whole MCP server; a server with twenty tools where the request needs one is kept or dropped as a unit, not tool-by-tool.
  • The description quality bounds the question quality. A server with no declared description falls back to a comma-joined list of its own tool names, which carries much less signal than a well-written one-line description — the wording fix above only helps once the server's own text is legible to a literal reader.
  • A close call still resolves to "keep." There is no partial exclusion; anything from a coin flip up to just under 0.6 confidence is treated identically to a confident true.
  • It shares the base model's general limits — literal reading, no arithmetic, accuracy sensitive to a noisy or oversized state — all described in what decide is bad at.
  • The query is untrusted input sent as state, and this module does not sanitize it. The blast radius is deliberately bounded instead: server ids are never read back off the wire (answers are matched by position, not by name), so the worst a crafted query can do is keep more already-registered servers than necessary — it cannot register a server that wasn't already configured.

See also​