Skip to main content
Glama
dsgarage

ReviewMCP

by dsgarage
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to ReviewMCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • markdownlint-mcp

      ernestgwilsonii
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides 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

    • i18n-keeper

      katerynaKhar
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      28 npm
      MIT

    • Vale MCP Server

      theletterf
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Integrates Vale prose linting into AI coding assistants, enabling users to check text files for style and grammar issues using Vale's powerful linting engine. Provides automated style feedback with smart configuration discovery and rich formatted results.
      3
      18
      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

    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
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources