A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceProvides AI assistants with the ability to lint, validate, and auto-fix Markdown files to ensure compliance with established Markdown standards and best practices.
6
MIT
ReviewMCP
by dsgarage
Related Servers
Alternatives to ReviewMCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityFmaintenanceProvides intelligent manuscript analysis and writing assistance for markdown projects, including semantic search, quality checks, terminology consistency, link validation, progress tracking, and comprehensive writing statistics.35131 npm13MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA server that enables real-time checking and automated correction suggestions for Japanese technical documents using textlint's linting capabilities.1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables checking Minecraft Bedrock content before it ships by validating JSON, commands, scripts, Python and whole packs against official schemas, a real tsc, and version-pinned game data, and by looking up whether identifiers, versions and fields actually exist. It reports what will silently fail to load — including errors schemas structurally cannot catch — without generating or writing anything itself.0Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables deterministic linting of locale files across JSON, Laravel PHP, gettext, and YAML, with no LLM or network, verifying translations for missing keys, placeholders, plural forms, glossary consistency, and stale entries.6 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables input/output policy validation via MCP, including scanning text for policy and safety issues, generating test suite outlines, and checking configuration health.34 npmISC
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Scored across 13 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific aspects of the Re:VIEW workflow (e.g., PDF generation, Ruby extensions, tag enforcement, ID fixing, linting, preprocessing, security, mapfile testing, version checking). However, review.security.compare and review.security.validate-mapfile could be slightly confused as both involve security validation, though their specific focuses differ (config comparison vs. mapfile validation).
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent dot-separated naming pattern (e.g., review.build-pdf-hybrid, review.check-ruby-extensions) with clear verb-noun-action structures. Minor deviations include hyphen usage in some names (e.g., build-pdf-hybrid) versus underscores in others (e.g., validate-mapfile), but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 13 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Re:VIEW document processing server. Each tool addresses a specific need in the workflow (e.g., preprocessing, linting, security, PDF generation), and none appear redundant or unnecessary, fitting a typical range for such a domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core aspects of Re:VIEW processing including preprocessing, linting, PDF generation, security validation, and tag/ID management. Minor gaps might include tools for advanced editing or collaboration features, but the surface supports essential workflows without dead ends, allowing agents to handle most tasks effectively.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues