Skip to main content
Glama
ReviewGate

Review Gate

Official
by ReviewGate
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Review Gate

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • leveret

      leveret-dev
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Self-hosted MCP engine for private code reviews, providing deterministic static analysis and AST-level search over diffs, with findings passed to a review agent of your choice.
      5
      2
      AGPL 3.0

    • github-review-queue-mcp

      alijahak
      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

    • open-code-review

      raye-deng
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      AI-powered code review tool that detects AI-generated code defects invisible to traditional linters — hallucinated packages, deprecated APIs, cross-file contradictions, hidden security anti-patterns, and over-engineering. Works as a standalone CLI, GitHub Action, or MCP server. Supports TypeScript, Python, Java, Go, and Kotlin. Free for individuals, no API key required.
      4
      40
      -
    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

    A4.6/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have entirely distinct roles: one retrieves team standards, the other evaluates changes against them. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_team_rules and review_changes. The naming is consistent, predictable, and reflects their actions accurately.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels thin even though the server's purpose is narrowly focused on code-review gating. It is borderline but defensible for a single-purpose integration.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full core workflow: fetch the team's standards before implementing, then review changes before push. The review tool itself handles iteration and reporting, so there are no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources