Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Review MCP Server

Code Review MCP Server

by contentforge-press
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to Code Review MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • codereview-mcp

      lukaisluka
      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

    • GitLab Review MCP

      lininn
      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

    • aihealth

      epatel
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to review code-health deltas, preview proposed changes, score files or whole projects, and get explanations of code smells through MCP tools.
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

    TDQS

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    review_code is broad and overlaps with suggest_improvements (both provide code quality feedback) and partially with analyze_security. The descriptions help but do not fully draw clear boundaries between general review and targeted analysis.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: review_code, analyze_security, suggest_improvements. The convention is predictable and readable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is reasonable for a focused code-review server, with each targeting a distinct analysis angle. It is slightly thin for a full code-review workflow (e.g., no diff retrieval or comment posting), but not problematic.

    Completeness3/5

    The surface covers three common analysis types but lacks lifecycle operations such as fetching code changes, retrieving diffs, or posting review comments. These gaps may force agents to combine with other tools to complete a review workflow.

    Resources