Skip to main content
Glama
Biogod2020

article-review-mcp

by Biogod2020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to article-review-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • codeviewer-mcp

      Master0fFate
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A stateful, AST-aware MCP server for structured code review workflows. It enables iterative review sessions with AST-based context localization and provides structured feedback with verdicts and patch suggestions for JavaScript/TypeScript code.
      1
      GPL 3.0

    • PlanFlow

      DabiK
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for creating, validating, and reviewing implementation plans in GitHub Copilot Chat, with visual review interface and MongoDB persistence.
      -
    • mcp-review by apatureai

      mcp-reviewofficial

      apatureai
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server for in-loop design review of web previews. It enables agents to submit a preview URL, receive structured findings with suggested fixes, and recheck after applying changes, while never editing code itself.
      5
      1
      MIT

    • openreview-mcp

      OpenCodice-Research
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for searching and retrieving submissions, reviews, meta-reviews, rebuttals, and decisions from OpenReview venues like NeurIPS and ICLR, enabling peer review analysis.
      2
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    C2.6/5.0

    Scored across 19 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, including explicit compatibility aliases (create/submit_patchset, get_summary/get_feedback, set_decision/set_patch_decision, edit_hunk/edit_patch) and single/batch variants (add_comment/add_comments). This makes it difficult to tell tools apart despite clear descriptions.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All tools share the article_review_ prefix, but verb/object patterns vary: some omit objects (open, finalize, create), one uses an adverb (bulk_decide), and compatibility aliases introduce inconsistent verbs for the same action (e.g., set_decision vs set_patch_decision).

    Tool Count4/5

    At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the patch-based review workflow is inherently complex. The presence of 5 redundant compatibility tools inflates the count unnecessarily, keeping it from a perfect score.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full review lifecycle: patch submission, update rounds, decisions, commenting, feedback, pagination, and finalization. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit patch deletion or comment topic management, but these are workable.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources