Skip to main content
Glama
contentforge-press

Code Review MCP Server

README.md
# Code Review MCP Server

AI-powered code review MCP server for automated pull request analysis.

## Features

- **Code Review**: Automated PR review with actionable feedback
- **Security Analysis**: Identify security vulnerabilities in code
- **Improvement Suggestions**: Get code quality improvement recommendations
- **MCP Compatible**: Works with any MCP client (Claude, Cursor, etc.)

## Installation

```bash
npm install -g code-review-mcp
```

## Setup

1. Set your OpenAI API key:
```bash
export OPENAI_API_KEY="your-api-key-here"
```

2. Configure in your MCP client:

### Claude Desktop
Add to `claude_desktop_config.json`:
```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "code-review": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/code-review-mcp/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "OPENAI_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
      }
    }
  }
}
```

### Cursor
Add to `.cursor/mcp.json`:
```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "code-review": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/code-review-mcp/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "OPENAI_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
      }
    }
  }
}
```

## Available Tools

### 1. review_code
Review code changes and provide feedback.

**Parameters:**
- `diff` (required): The code diff to review
- `context` (optional): Additional context about the changes

**Example:**
```json
{
  "diff": "--- a/file.js\n+++ b/file.js\n@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@\n+// New function\n+function add(a, b) {\n+  return a + b;\n+}",
  "context": "Added new utility function for arithmetic operations"
}
```

### 2. analyze_security
Analyze code for security vulnerabilities.

**Parameters:**
- `code` (required): The code to analyze
- `language` (optional): Programming language

**Example:**
```json
{
  "code": "const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;",
  "language": "javascript"
}
```

### 3. suggest_improvements
Suggest code quality improvements.

**Parameters:**
- `code` (required): The code to analyze
- `focus` (optional): Focus area (performance, readability, best_practices, all)

**Example:**
```json
{
  "code": "function processData(data) { return data.filter(x => x).map(x => x * 2); }",
  "focus": "performance"
}
```

## Usage with AI Agents

This MCP server can be used by AI agents to automatically review code:

```javascript
// Example: AI agent using the MCP server
const review = await mcpClient.callTool({
  name: "review_code",
  arguments: {
    diff: prDiff,
    context: "Feature: user authentication"
  }
});

console.log(review.content[0].text);
```

## Enterprise Features

For enterprise use cases, contact us for:
- Custom review rules and guidelines
- Integration with CI/CD pipelines
- Team-specific coding standards
- Priority support
- On-premise deployment

## License

MIT

## Author

ContentForge Press

## Support

- GitHub Issues: https://github.com/contentforge-press/code-review-mcp/issues
- Email: support@contentforge.press

## CLI mode (CI-friendly)

Run a one-shot review without an MCP client:

```bash
# Review a diff file
reviewpilot-mcp --review pr.diff

# With context
reviewpilot-mcp --review pr.diff --context "PR #123: auth feature"

# Security scan a source file
reviewpilot-mcp --security src/app.js --language javascript
```

### GitHub Actions automatic PR review

Copy [`examples/github-action/reviewpilot.yml`](examples/github-action/reviewpilot.yml) to `.github/workflows/`. Every PR gets an automated review comment.

## Configuration

| Variable | Required | Default | Purpose |
|----------|----------|---------|---------|
| `OPENAI_API_KEY` | yes | — | API key |
| `OPENAI_BASE_URL` | no | OpenAI | Any OpenAI-compatible endpoint (gateways, local servers) |
| `REVIEW_MODEL` | no | `gpt-4o-mini` | Model used for review |

Use a local or cheaper model by pointing `OPENAI_BASE_URL` and `REVIEW_MODEL` at an OpenAI-compatible server.

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.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues