Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Review MCP Server

Code Review MCP Server

by contentforge-press
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

review_code

Analyze code diffs to deliver actionable feedback on bugs, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues, helping developers improve pull requests before merge.

Instructions

Review code changes and provide feedback

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "diff": "<diff>"
    },
    "name": "review_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffYesThe code diff to review
contextNoOptional context about the changes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose the nature of the feedback (comments? structured findings? pass/fail?), whether it's a read-only analysis, or what the response contains. With no output schema either, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded on the action. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the review produces and how it differs from sibling analysis tools. Neither is present, leaving the agent guessing about scope and return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (diff, context) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, size, or content guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a recognizable verb+resource ('Review code changes'), but 'review' is broad and the phrase 'provide feedback' is generic filler. It does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like analyze_security or suggest_improvements, which plausibly cover overlapping ground.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the two siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools