MCP Gemini Server

# Code Review Meta Prompt: MCP Gemini Server Upload Feature Removal ## Context You are acting as both a **Team Lead** and **Senior Staff Engineer** conducting a comprehensive code review of a major refactoring effort. The development team has completed implementing PRD requirements to remove all file upload capabilities from an MCP (Model Context Protocol) Gemini Server while preserving URL-based multimedia analysis functionality. ## Review Scope The changes span across the entire codebase and involve: - **Code Removal**: Deletion of upload-related tools, services, and type definitions - **Service Refactoring**: Modification of core services to remove file handling logic - **API Consolidation**: Streamlining of tool interfaces and parameter schemas - **Test Updates**: Comprehensive test suite modifications and cleanup - **Documentation Overhaul**: Major updates to README and creation of new user guides ## Technical Architecture Context This is a TypeScript/Node.js MCP server that: - Wraps Google's `@google/genai` SDK (v0.10.0) - Provides Gemini AI capabilities as standardized MCP tools - Supports multiple transport methods (stdio, HTTP, SSE) - Implements service-based architecture with dependency injection - Uses Zod for schema validation and strict TypeScript typing - Maintains comprehensive test coverage with Vitest ## Review Objectives ### 1. **Architecture & Design Review** Evaluate whether the refactoring: - Maintains clean separation of concerns - Preserves the existing service-based architecture - Introduces any architectural debt or anti-patterns - Properly handles dependency injection and service boundaries - Maintains consistent error handling patterns ### 2. **Type Safety & Schema Validation** Assess: - TypeScript type precision and safety (no widening to `any`) - Zod schema consistency and validation completeness - Interface contracts and backward compatibility - Generic constraints and type inference preservation - Removal of unused types without breaking dependent code ### 3. **API Design & Consistency** Review: - Tool parameter schema consistency across similar operations - MCP protocol compliance and standard adherence - URL-based vs file-based operation distinction clarity - Error response standardization and user experience - Tool naming conventions and parameter structures ### 4. **Security Implications** Examine: - URL validation and security screening mechanisms - Removal of file upload attack vectors - Path traversal prevention in remaining file operations - Input sanitization for URL-based content processing - Authentication and authorization model integrity ### 5. **Test Coverage & Quality** Analyze: - Test suite completeness after file upload test removal - URL-based functionality test coverage adequacy - Integration test scenarios for multimedia analysis - Mocking strategies for external URL dependencies - Test maintainability and reliability ### 6. **Documentation & User Experience** Evaluate: - Clarity of file upload vs URL-based distinction - Completeness of migration guidance for existing users - Example quality and real-world applicability - Error message helpfulness and actionability - Developer onboarding experience improvements ## Technical Validation Tasks ### Code Quality Checks 1. **Run and analyze** the project's lint, typecheck, and formatting tools 2. **Verify** that `npm run check-all` passes without errors 3. **Examine** TypeScript compilation with strict mode enabled 4. **Review** test suite execution results and coverage reports ### External Documentation Validation 1. **Cross-reference** Google Gemini API documentation at: - https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/image-understanding - https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/video-understanding 2. **Validate** claimed capabilities against official API specifications 3. **Verify** supported format lists and limitation accuracy 4. **Check** rate limiting and quota information accuracy ### Dependency Analysis 1. **Review** package.json changes for dependency management 2. **Assess** potential security vulnerabilities in remaining dependencies 3. **Evaluate** bundle size impact of removed functionality 4. **Check** for unused dependencies that can be removed ## Specific Areas of Concern ### Critical Questions to Address: 1. **Completeness**: Are there any remnants of upload functionality that were missed? 2. **Breaking Changes**: What is the impact on existing users and how is it communicated? 3. **Performance**: Does URL-based processing introduce new performance bottlenecks? 4. **Reliability**: How robust is the URL fetching and validation logic? 5. **Scalability**: Can the URL-based approach handle production workloads? ### Code Patterns to Validate: - Consistent error handling across all URL-based operations - Proper async/await usage in service methods - Resource cleanup and memory management - Retry logic and timeout handling for URL operations - Caching strategy effectiveness for repeated URL access ## Deliverable Requirements ### Code Review Report Structure: 1. **Executive Summary** (2-3 paragraphs) - Overall assessment of changes - Major risks and recommendations - Go/no-go decision with rationale 2. **Technical Assessment** (detailed analysis) - Architecture and design review findings - Security and performance implications - Code quality and maintainability assessment - Test coverage and reliability evaluation 3. **Actionable Feedback** (prioritized list) - Critical issues requiring immediate attention - Recommended improvements for next iteration - Future considerations and technical debt items - Documentation gaps and clarity improvements 4. **Compliance Verification** - TypeScript strict mode compliance - MCP protocol standard adherence - Google Gemini API usage best practices - Security best practices implementation ### Review Standards: - **Be specific**: Reference exact file paths, line numbers, and code snippets - **Be actionable**: Provide concrete suggestions for improvements - **Be balanced**: Acknowledge good practices alongside areas for improvement - **Be thorough**: Cover all aspects from architecture to documentation - **Be pragmatic**: Consider real-world usage scenarios and edge cases ## Background Context for Review The team has systematically worked through a comprehensive task list covering: - Tool removal and service refactoring (Tasks 1.0-2.0) - Type system cleanup and schema updates (Task 3.0) - Test suite overhaul and validation (Task 4.0) - Documentation transformation and user guidance (Task 5.0) The goal was to create a cleaner, more focused server that emphasizes URL-based multimedia analysis while removing the complexity and security concerns of direct file uploads. Please conduct this review with the rigor expected for a production system that will be used by multiple teams and external developers.