Skip to main content
Glama
ArthDh

code-reviewer-mcp

by ArthDh

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{
  "listChanged": false
}
prompts
{
  "listChanged": false
}
resources
{
  "subscribe": false,
  "listChanged": false
}
experimental
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
get_branch_diffC

Get the git diff between the current branch and a base branch.

Args: base_branch: The base branch to compare against (default: development). file_filter: File pattern to filter (default: *.py for Python files). working_directory: Working directory (defaults to current directory).

Returns: The git diff output showing changes on the current branch.

get_changed_filesA

Get a list of changed files on the current branch.

Args: base_branch: The base branch to compare against (default: development). file_filter: File pattern to filter (default: *.py for Python files). working_directory: Working directory (defaults to current directory).

Returns: List of changed file paths with change statistics.

review_diffA

Review the git diff against the code review persona standards.

This tool analyzes the diff between your current branch and the base branch, then provides structured feedback based on the team's code review standards.

Args: base_branch: The base branch to compare against (default: development). working_directory: Working directory (defaults to current directory). focus_areas: Comma-separated focus areas: 'types', 'docs', 'style', 'errors', 'performance', 'architecture', or 'all'. persona_file: Path to a custom reviewer persona markdown file. Example: "notebooks/code_reviewer_persona.md" If not provided, uses the default persona.

Returns: A structured code review with comments organized by file and category.

review_fileB

Review a specific file against the code review persona standards.

Args: file_path: Path to the file to review (relative or absolute). working_directory: Working directory (defaults to current directory). persona_file: Path to a custom reviewer persona markdown file. Example: "notebooks/code_reviewer_persona.md" If not provided, uses the default persona.

Returns: Code review feedback for the specified file.

get_personaA

Get the code reviewer persona that will be used for reviews.

Use this to view or verify the persona before running a review.

Args: persona_file: Path to a custom reviewer persona markdown file. Example: "notebooks/code_reviewer_persona.md" If not provided, uses the default persona. working_directory: Working directory (defaults to current directory).

Returns: The full persona content that will be used for code reviews.

get_review_checklistB

Get the full code review checklist based on the persona.

Returns: A comprehensive checklist for manual code review.

generate_review_reportB

Generate a comprehensive code review report as a markdown file.

Args: base_branch: The base branch to compare against (default: development). output_file: Path to write the report (default: .code_review.md in repo root). working_directory: Working directory (defaults to current directory). persona_file: Path to a custom reviewer persona markdown file. Example: "notebooks/code_reviewer_persona.md" If not provided, uses the default persona.

Returns: Path to the generated report file and a summary.

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Scored across 7 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct artifact (diff, file list, checklist, persona, diff review, file review, report), and descriptions clarify boundaries. The only mild overlap is between review_diff and review_file, but they differ on scope (whole diff vs single file) so agents can still select correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All names are snake_case and follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (get_*, review_*, generate_*). The convention is applied uniformly across all seven tools with no deviations.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a code review server, and each earns its place by covering a distinct step in the review workflow (gather, inspect, review, report). No redundancy or filler.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full local review lifecycle: diff retrieval, changed files, checklist, persona inspection, diff/file review, and report generation. Minor gaps exist around acting on results (e.g. posting comments to a PR or reviewing a commit range), but core workflows are complete.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues