Skip to main content
Glama
BilalUchiha

vibecheck

by BilalUchiha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to vibecheck

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • code-review-agent

      kestarsheng
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to submit code snippets for review and receive structured quality reports covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, and best practices.
      1
      -

    • phionyx-pipeline-mcp

      halvrenofviryel
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables verification of AI coding agent self-reports against git diff truth and a deterministic gate, producing pass/regenerate/reject directives to ensure claimed work matches actual changes.
      6
      AGPL 3.0

    • gitworthy

      trippyogi
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to scout, rank, and preflight software work before implementation, returning evidence-backed ACT, VERIFY, or SKIP decisions for issues and pull requests.
      45 npm
      2
      MIT

    • BlindReview MCP

      Magnifico4625
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to get one independent reviewer that first reasons about a problem without seeing the proposed solution, then compares it against the revealed proposal and returns a compact verdict (KEEP/MODIFY/REPLACE/INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE) with risks, an alternative, and a falsification probe before committing to expensive decisions.
      3
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: configure_project handles setup, submit_for_review performs the review, and get_review_log retrieves historical results. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: configure_project, submit_for_review, get_review_log. This creates a predictable and clear naming convention.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is slightly on the lower end but appropriate for the server's narrow scope of code review configuration and execution. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: configuration, submission, and log retrieval. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit way to read the current configuration or delete it, but these do not hinder the primary workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources