Skip to main content
Glama
fefergrgrgrg

Frontend Review MCP

by fefergrgrgrg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to Frontend Review MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • mcp-review by apatureai

      mcp-reviewofficial

      apatureai
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server for in-loop design review of web previews. It enables agents to submit a preview URL, receive structured findings with suggested fixes, and recheck after applying changes, while never editing code itself.
      5
      1
      MIT

    • Copilot Leecher

      xiangxiaobo
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables users to review and refine AI outputs through a local web UI, returning feedback as free tool call results to save on GitHub Copilot premium requests. It allows for multiple rounds of iterative improvements within a single request session.
      1
      30
      -

    • Where's Waldo Rick

      bretbouchard
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides agentic vision capabilities for visual regression testing by capturing and comparing screenshots using Gemini Flash. It enables users to detect UI changes and conduct conversational investigations to distinguish between intended and unintended visual modifications.
      -
    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

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap with other tools. The tool 'reviewEdit' has a single, clearly defined purpose focused on visual review of UI edits.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'reviewEdit' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and there are no other tools to compare it against for inconsistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is generally too few for a server's purpose, as it limits functionality and can feel thin. For a 'Frontend Review MCP', one might expect additional tools for tasks like listing reviews, managing requests, or handling different types of edits, making this count inappropriate for the apparent scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a frontend review domain. While 'reviewEdit' handles the core review action, there are obvious gaps such as tools for creating, listing, updating, or deleting review requests, which would be essential for a complete workflow and could cause agent failures due to missing operations.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources