Co-dev review MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to Co-dev review MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables code review operations on GitHub and GitLab, including fetching pull/merge requests, viewing diffs, adding comments, analyzing code quality, and creating merge requests directly from your MCP client.1527 npm4MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables manual review of GitLab Merge Requests and GitHub Pull Requests, loading context, generating comment previews, and preparing commit-based fixes for unresolved threads. Every write — comments, replies, and commits — requires explicit user confirmation and an approved preview before it is published.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables automated AI-powered code review for pull requests across GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure DevOps via webhooks, and manual code review through MCP tools using Groq, Claude, or GPT-4.1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables pull request review, risk rating, and improvement suggestions directly inside MCP clients by pasting a GitLab/GitHub URL; it can post review comments back to the PR/MR.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceLets MCP clients such as Claude or ChatGPT find the pull requests waiting on your review, read their details and changed files, check CI status, post comments, and submit approve, request-changes, or comment reviews. It runs locally over stdio with a personal token or as a remote server with its own OAuth 2.1 authorization server (PKCE, dynamic client registration, per-client consent, and refresh-token rotation) so GitHub is only used to sign the user in.6MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceConnects LLMs to GitHub and GitLab to analyze pull and merge requests for logic, security, and architectural alignment. It provides tools for fetching diffs, file contents, and project metadata, alongside guided prompts for professional code reviews.109 npmISC
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
review_work and review_sonar both concern reviewing PR/MR code and could be confused at first glance, but their descriptions clearly separate general diff/rubric/checks review from Sonar-specific quality-gate inspection. plan_ticket_tasks is clearly distinct for Azure ticket planning.
All tools use snake_case and follow a verb_noun style: review_work, review_sonar, plan_ticket_tasks. The only minor deviation is plan_ticket_tasks carrying an extra noun, but the convention remains predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server: one for code review workflow, one for Sonar inspection, and one for ticket planning. Each tool aggregates multiple substeps rather than spawning many tiny operations.
The review_work and plan_ticket_tasks tools cover read, prepare, view, and publish stages, giving broad lifecycle support. Minor gaps remain around triggering a fresh Sonar analysis and directly posting review comments/approvals outside the draft workflow.