Skip to main content
Glama
dasunmihiranga

Code Review Assistant

Code Review Assistant

Code Review Assistant Architecture - visual selection

Code Review Assistant Architecture - visual selection (1)

Project Description

The Code Review Assistant is a simple multi-agent system built using the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and LangChain. Its purpose is to provide automated, preliminary feedback on code snippets, including syntax checking, code explanation, and improvement suggestions. It can be integrated with MCP-compatible clients like Cursor IDE or Claude for Desktop.

Related MCP server: code-review-mcp-server

Features

  • Syntax Check: Identifies potential syntax errors and structural issues.

  • Code Explanation: Provides a high-level explanation of the code's functionality.

  • Suggestion Generation: Offers actionable suggestions for code improvement.

  • MCP Server: Exposes code review capabilities as a tool via the Model Context Protocol.

  • Flexible LLM Backend: Supports both local Ollama models and the Groq API.

File Structure

code_review_assistant/
├── .uv/                        # uv virtual environment directory (may be .venv based on your setup)
├── .env                        # Environment variables (sensitive config, ignored by git)
├── .gitignore                  # Specifies intentionally untracked files (.env, __pycache__, etc.)
├── code_review_server.py       # Main MCP server file (FastMCP instance, tool definitions)
├── agents/
│   ├── __init__.py             # Initializes the agents module
│   ├── syntax_check_agent.py   # Contains logic for SyntaxCheckAgent
│   ├── explanation_agent.py    # Contains logic for CodeExplanationAgent
│   └── suggestion_agent.py    # Contains logic for SuggestionAgent
├── prompts/
│   ├── syntax_check_prompt.py  # Prompt template for syntax checking
│   ├── explanation_prompt.py   # Prompt template for code explanation
│   └── suggestion_prompt.py    # Prompt template for suggestions
├── config.py                   # Non-sensitive, application-wide configurations
└── requirements.txt            # Project dependencies

Setup

  1. Clone the repository (if applicable, or navigate to your project directory).

  2. Install uv: If you don't have uv installed, follow the official installation guide.

    # Example: via pipx
    pipx install uv
  3. Navigate to the project directory:

    cd your-project-directory # e.g., cd CRA-MCP/cra
  4. Set up the virtual environment and install dependencies:

    uv venv
    # Activate the virtual environment
    # On Windows:
    .venv\\Scripts\\activate
    # On macOS/Linux:
    source .venv/bin/activate
    
    # Install dependencies from requirements.txt
    uv sync
  5. Configure Environment Variables: Create a file named .env in the root of the project (same directory as requirements.txt). Copy the contents from .sample.env and fill in your actual configuration.

    # Example .env content (copy from .sample.env)
    # ... your configuration here ...

    Important: Replace <your_groq_api_key_here> with your actual Groq API key if you plan to use Groq.

  6. If using Ollama: Download and install Ollama from ollama.com. Pull the required model (e.g., qwen2.5-coder) by running ollama pull qwen2.5-coder in your terminal. Ensure the Ollama server is running before starting the Code Review Assistant server.

Running the Server

  1. Activate the virtual environment (if not already active):

    # On Windows:
    .venv\\Scripts\\activate
    # On macOS/Linux:
    source .venv/bin/activate
  2. Run the server using uv:

    uv run code_review_server.py

    The server will start and listen for connections from MCP clients.

Using the Tool

Once the server is running, you can connect to it from an MCP-compatible client (like Cursor IDE chat or Claude for Desktop). The client should detect the available code_review_assistant server and expose the review_code tool.

Call the review_code tool with the code snippet you want to review:

review_code("""
# Paste your code snippet here
def example_function(x):
    return x * 2
""")

The server will process the request using the configured LLM and return a consolidated code review including syntax feedback, explanation, and suggestions.

Customization

  • Prompts: Modify the prompt templates in the prompts/ directory to adjust the behavior of each agent.

  • Agents: Enhance the logic within the agent files (agents/) to include more complex processing or integrate with other tools/APIs.

  • Configuration: Update config.py for application-wide settings or add new environment variables to .env.


Note: This is a starting point. Further development is needed to implement more sophisticated LLM interactions, error handling, and potentially integrate additional review aspects.

Available Tools

1 tool
review_codeB

Provides an automated code review including syntax check, explanation, and suggestions.

Args: code_snippet: The code snippet string to review.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
code_snippetYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only mentions generic capabilities ('syntax check, explanation, and suggestions') without detailing behavioral traits like response nature, safety, or limitations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise with two succinct sentences plus a single parameter line, containing no unnecessary information.

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?

The description lacks details on return values or output format, which is critical for a code review tool, and does not cover edge cases or expected behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning to the parameter 'code_snippet' by stating it is 'the code snippet string to review,' but with 0% schema description coverage, more detail on constraints or format would be beneficial.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool provides an automated code review including syntax check, explanation, and suggestions, which aligns with the tool name 'review_code' and distinguishes it from potential siblings as none exist.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives; it simply describes what it does without context for selection.

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

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is maintained by default. The name 'review_code' is straightforward.

Tool Count3/5

The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a code review assistant. While it covers the main function, additional tools (e.g., for file review or settings) would be expected.

Completeness3/5

The single tool provides syntax check, explanation, and suggestions, but lacks other common code review features like file input or configurable review settings. The surface is minimal.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dasunmihiranga/code-review-assistant-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server