A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceMCP server for reviewing code changes using LLMs, supporting Copilot, Ollama, and OpenAI-compatible endpoints.
MIT
AI-Code-Reviewer
by devatraj
Related Servers
Alternatives to AI-Code-Reviewer
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that enables AI coding assistants to audit repositories against engineering rules, generating self-contained HTML reports with citations and optional GitHub issue filing.101Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that automates code reviews through linting, testing, and git diff analysis. It also generates conventional commit messages and detailed pull request descriptions based on file changes and code patterns.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceOpen-source AI code review MCP server for local git diff auditing with deterministic security rules and AI-powered analysis using any OpenAI-compatible model.4MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets AI agents review code using language models, supporting git diffs, files, and snippets with severity levels. Works with Ollama (local) and hosted providers like OpenAI, Anthropic, and OpenRouter.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that performs automated code reviews by analyzing git diffs against configurable review standards with custom reviewer personas.72MIT
TDQS
A4/5.0
Scored across 6 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: ping for health, index_repo for indexing, get_index_status for checking indexing state, explain_convention for Q&A on conventions, and review_diff/review_file for reviewing code changes. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., index_repo, review_diff), but 'ping' deviates as a noun-only name. This minor inconsistency is acceptable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of indexing and reviewing code conventions. Each tool earns its place, covering indexing, status, health, and two review methods.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core workflow (index, check status, review diff/file, explain conventions). Missing a tool to retrieve all conventions or clear the index are minor gaps, but the essential review cycle is complete.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues