A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceAn MCP server that provides code quality checks for AI coding assistants, including file size limits, ESLint, architecture compliance, anti-pattern scanning, and comment compliance.
7 npm
MIT
code-review-mcp
by AlanNiew
Related Servers
Alternatives to code-review-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for automated code review using AI agents. It analyzes code diffs or file paths for bugs, security issues, and style violations.MIT
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA universal MCP server that acts as a code quality gate for AI assistants, providing pre-generation guidance, post-generation review, and root cause analysis to improve code quality.-
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that analyzes local or remote GitHub repositories, providing intelligent code context and structure to AI coding assistants.1013MIT
flyto-indexerofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that gives AI assistants impact analysis, cross-project reference tracking, and code health scoring.87 PyPI4Apache 2.0- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides senior-level code review, quality checks, security analysis, and refactoring suggestions directly in your editor.1MIT
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation3/5
review_changes and the deprecated review_diff substantially overlap, both auditing uncommitted git changes, so an agent could misselect despite the explicit deprecation note. analyze_file, check_project, and list_rules are clearly distinct from each other and from the review tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All five tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (review_changes, analyze_file, review_diff, check_project, list_rules). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count4/5
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a code-review server covering diff review, single-file analysis, project scan, and rule discovery. The count is slightly inflated by one deprecated tool kept only for backward compatibility.
Completeness4/5
The domain (local code review/quality analysis) is well covered: change review with scope options, file analysis, project-wide scanning, and rule enumeration. Minor gaps exist, e.g. no way to configure or filter rules or to compare against a saved baseline report, but core workflows are complete.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues