Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Co-dev review MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      15
      6 npm
      4
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to review GitHub pull requests and GitLab merge requests by fetching PR/MR details and diffs, with optional file-type filtering, and posting inline, general, or batched review comments. Supports self-hosted GitLab and custom project-specific review rules through stdio, SSE, or WebSocket transports.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Lets 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.
      6
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The three tools target mostly distinct domains: review_work handles general code review workflow, plan_ticket_tasks handles ticket decomposition, and review_sonar handles Sonar evidence. However, review_work and review_sonar both operate on PR/MR quality assessment, so an agent may be unsure which to call first without reading the descriptions carefully.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All names use snake_case, but the verb+object pattern is inconsistent: review_work and review_sonar share a 'review_' prefix, while plan_ticket_tasks uses 'plan_' with a three-word noun phrase. 'work' is also a vague noun compared to 'sonar', making the naming less predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools roughly map to the server's three apparent domains, which is reasonable. However, review_work alone packs thirteen distinct step operations into one tool, suggesting the surface is slightly under-factored and could benefit from narrower tools.

    Completeness4/5

    review_work provides an end-to-end lifecycle from diff reading to publishing comments, plan_ticket_tasks covers ticket search through approval and creation, and review_sonar covers Sonar evidence. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for updating existing tickets or merging MRs, but agents can work around them within the stated review scope.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues