Frontend Review MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| reviewEditB | Perform a visual review of a UI edit request. The 'before screenshot' is a screenshot of the page before the edit, and the 'after screenshot' is the screenshot of the page after the edit. You will recieve either a yes or no response, indicating whether the edit visually satisfies the edit request. If no, it will provide a detailed explanation of why the edit does not satisfy the request so you can continue to work on it. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
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.
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.
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.
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.