Review Gate
OfficialServer Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| review_changesA | Checks code changes against THIS team's standards (the rules from .reviewgate/config.yml plus the stack preset) with a two-pass review: a generator finds, an independent judge confirms against the full files. Call it BEFORE finishing a task and before git push. The verdict is in |
| get_team_rulesA | Returns this team's code standards. Call it BEFORE writing code, so that you write to the standards from the start instead of learning them from a review. If you are asked to EDIT .reviewgate/config.yml: its schema is CLOSED — a rule has exactly id, description and severity; do not invent plausible-looking keys (globs, prompt, when, …) — an unknown key is NOT applied. Conditions and file scoping are written in plain language inside description (or review_prompt). Validate against https://reviewgate.dev/config.schema.json before committing. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
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.
Both tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_team_rules and review_changes. The naming is consistent, predictable, and reflects their actions accurately.
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.
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.