Skip to main content
Glama
crazyrabbitLTC

Code Review MCP Server

by crazyrabbitLTC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to Code Review MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Code Review MCP Server

      danielefavi
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      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
      12 npm
      ISC

    • Gemini CLI MCP Server

      Artegy
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables comprehensive codebase analysis using Google's Gemini AI through CLI integration. Provides architectural reviews and targeted code analysis with code2prompt integration for efficient context extraction.
      4 npm
      2
      Apache 2.0

    • Argus MCP

      lokafinnsw
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI-powered, zero-trust code review with multiple models, supporting single files, git diffs, and multiple files, with security, performance, and architecture checks across 10+ languages.
      13
      MIT

    • MCP Code Reviewer

      parthamehta123
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI-powered code review and improvement, including analysis, refactoring suggestions, and automatic test generation, with an optional agentic loop for iterative refinement.
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: analyze_repo provides a high-level structural overview, while code_review offers detailed analysis with specific feedback. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions explicitly differentiate when to use each tool.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (analyze_repo and code_review), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and aligns well with their described functionalities.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Code Review MCP Server' domain. While the tools cover analysis and review, the scope suggests potential gaps in operations like managing reviews, tracking issues, or integrating with version control, making the set appear incomplete for the stated purpose.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for code review workflows. It lacks essential operations such as creating, updating, or deleting reviews; commenting on code; or handling pull requests. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform common code review tasks beyond basic analysis.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources