Skip to main content
Glama
apatureai

mcp-review

Official
by apatureai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-review

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • uisight

      ramirez74390
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that lets agents drive and measure live mobile and desktop browser sessions, returning text findings on contrast, touch targets, overflow and theme drift instead of guesses from screenshots. It also lets the human and the agent share one live session, so pinned notes and frames are read directly by the agent.
      98 npm
      MIT

    • uisight

      Kenneth67298
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      This MCP server enables AI agents to measure live web and responsive UIs — contrast ratios, touch targets, overflow, and theme drift — returning precise, selector-attached findings as text. It also lets a human and agent share the same live mobile and desktop session, with pinned notes and screenshots readable by the agent.
      98 npm
      MIT

    • uisight

      sololabstr
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server that provides AI coding agents with real-time visual access to web apps, enabling them to see screens, run accessibility and layout inspections, and interact with pages through a shared live panel.
      98 npm
      130
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: submit review, get status, recheck, cancel, and panel action. There is no overlap between submission and retrieval, and cancellation is separate from panel actions. The descriptions further differentiate them, making misselection unlikely.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the 'design_' prefix, but the suffix varies: 'review', 'review_get', 'recheck', 'review_cancel', 'review_panel_action'. While 'design_review' is a verb phrase, others combine 'review' with a noun (get, cancel) and 'recheck' is a different verb. The pattern is mostly consistent and readable, but not perfectly uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    Five tools is well within the recommended 3-15 range and matches the scope of a review service. Each tool covers a distinct operation in the review lifecycle without redundancy or bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core lifecycle: submit, poll/retrieve, recheck, and cancel, plus an interactive panel action for post-review interactions. Minor gaps like listing all past reviews are not essential for the primary workflow, and the tool set is adequate for its stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources