Skip to main content
Glama
MohamedAmineBoufares

Co-dev review MCP

by MohamedAmineBoufares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Co-dev review MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • GitLab Review MCP

      lininn
      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
      8 npm
      4
      MIT

    • Codex Code Review MCP

      eliangelap
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      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.
      -

    • Code Review MCP Server

      danielefavi
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Connects 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.
      10
      10 npm
      ISC
    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

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    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.

    Tool Count5/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources