mcp-multi-agent-code-review
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-multi-agent-code-reviewAnalyze this diff and give a pass/fail verdict."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Multi-Agent Code Review MCP Server
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that runs a multi-agent code review pipeline built with LangGraph. Point any MCP host (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Claude Code) at it, hand it a git diff, and a graph of specialized LLM agents reviews the change for security, quality, and logic issues, then a supervisor agent aggregates their findings into a single pass/fail verdict.
This is not an API wrapper. It is a stateful multi-agent graph behind a production-style guardrail stack.

Why this exists
Most "AI code review" demos are a single prompt that says "review this code." Real review is adversarial and multi-perspective: a security reviewer, a quality reviewer, and a correctness reviewer each look for different things, and someone senior reconciles them. This project models exactly that as a LangGraph state graph, and exposes it over MCP so it plugs into the tools developers already use.
Related MCP server: compare-mcp
Architecture
validate + rate-limit + audit (deterministic guardrails)
│
▼
prepare (redact secrets before any LLM call)
│
┌───────────────┼───────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
security quality logic (3 agents, run concurrently)
└───────────────┼───────────────┘
▼
supervisor (aggregate, gate on severity)
│
▼
pass / fail verdictLangGraph manages shared state and the fan-out / fan-in of the three reviewer agents.
Each agent returns structured output (a Pydantic
AgentReport), so malformed model output is rejected at the boundary, never propagated.The supervisor merges agent findings with a deterministic secret scan and applies a configurable severity gate.
Industry-level features (not a student toy)
Input validation — size limits, encoding checks, file-count guards.
Deterministic secret pre-scan — regex catch for AWS keys, private keys, bearer/Slack tokens, API-key assignments. Runs before any LLM call.
Secret redaction — matched secrets are redacted before the diff is ever sent to an external model.
Rate limiting — in-memory token bucket per configured window.
Audit logging — every call logged with a SHA-256 of the input (never the raw source), so the audit trail is not a secondary leak.
Config-driven severity gate — a review fails only if a finding meets the configured threshold; fully env-overridable via
pydantic-settings.Graceful degradation — if one agent's model output is unparseable, that agent is skipped, not the whole review.
Tested — the deterministic core (security + supervisor logic) has a full pytest suite that runs with no API key.
Tech stack
Python · MCP (FastMCP) · LangGraph · LangChain · Pydantic · pytest
Setup
pip install -r requirements.txt
export CODEREVIEW_LLM_PROVIDER=anthropic
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=... # or OPENAI_API_KEY with LLM_PROVIDER=openaiRun the tests (no API key needed)
pytestRun the server
python -m src.serverRegister with Claude Code / Cursor
claude mcp add code-review -- python -m src.serverThen in your MCP host, call the review_diff tool with a unified git diff.
Configuration
All settings are environment variables prefixed CODEREVIEW_:
Variable | Default | Meaning |
|
|
|
|
| Gate: fail at/above this level |
|
| Reject larger diffs |
|
| Max reviews/minute |
Note on MCP versioning
requirements.txt pins mcp>=1.28,<2 on purpose: MCP SDK v1.x is the stable
production line, and v2 is a breaking rework. Pinning below v2 is the
recommended practice for anything depending on mcp.
This server cannot be installed
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables multi-agent code review with P0/P1/P2 severity scoring by orchestrating locally installed AI CLIs (Claude, Codex) to perform parallel analysis, deterministic scoring, and consensus-building on git diffs.2
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables multi-model code review by fanning out issues to multiple LLMs simultaneously, diffing their unique insights, optionally running debate rounds, and dispatching subagents to implement fixes with git commits.72MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceOpen-source AI code review MCP server for local git diff auditing with deterministic security rules and AI-powered analysis using any OpenAI-compatible model.4MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables 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.6AGPL 3.0
Related MCP Connectors
A paid remote MCP for OpenAI Codex agent coordination MCP, built to return verdicts, receipts, usage
Git-native policy layer for AI agents: check_action verdicts against rules approved via PR.
AI code review for GitHub PRs with an MCP autofix loop for Claude Code and Cursor
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Jk180603/mcp-multi-agent-code-review'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server