Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Review Helper

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      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
      18 npm
      ISC
    • 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
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables reviewing GitHub pull requests via ChatGPT, including listing PRs, viewing diffs, posting comments, approving, and requesting changes.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables management of Bitbucket Cloud pull requests through natural language, including creating, reviewing, approving, and commenting on PRs with automatic default reviewer support.
      79
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      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
      21 npm
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to request a local, merge-request-style review of changes across multiple git repos and worktrees on a single page. Reviewers leave line comments, answer the agent's questions, and submit an approve or request-changes verdict, which is returned to the agent as markdown it can act on.
      660 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a distinct role in the review workflow, but open_review and get_workspace both appear to load workspace/viewer data, and propose_review_plan versus review_progress both touch local review state, leaving mild boundary ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Names are all snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern. provider_connection is noun-only and propose_review_plan is a longer verb phrase, but these are minor deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools is well-scoped for a PR review helper. Each supports a clear step in the workflow: connect, open, read, plan, track progress, and load the workspace.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers provider sign-in, review opening, section reading, local planning, progress tracking, and viewer workspace. It lacks explicit tools for browsing multiple reviews or finalizing/submitting feedback, though non-submission appears intentional.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues