A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceAn MCP server that provides agentic code review powered by OpenAI-compatible models, designed for use with Claude Code.
1
MIT
mrt-fe-review-washer
by jaeuk-mrt
Related Servers
Alternatives to mrt-fe-review-washer
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for team task tracking, code review, and activity monitoring via Claude Code. Assign tasks, track branch activity, review code, and get daily summaries through natural language.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables code review by having two LLMs (Claude and GPT-4o) independently evaluate code and then synthesize their findings into a unified report.3MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that enables AI coding tools to scan projects for security vulnerabilities, secret leaks, and compliance issues, generating Korean-language audit reports.118PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for reviewing code changes using LLMs, supporting Copilot, Ollama, and OpenAI-compatible endpoints.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for AI-assisted code review, enabling integration with the DevReview tool.1-
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Scored across 17 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., review.collect_diff vs review.make_prompt). However, task.complete, task.update_status, and task.execute all involve status changes, which could lead to confusion about which to use.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names follow a consistent domain.action pattern with snake_case (e.g., review.collect_diff, task.update_status). Minor deviations like task.from_review and task.stats break the verb-first convention.
Tool Count3/5
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the two clear domains (review and task) justify the count. It feels a bit heavy but manageable.
Completeness4/5
The review pipeline (collect, prompt, save, list, get, export) and task lifecycle (create, list, get, update, execute, verify, complete, delete, stats) are well covered. Minor gaps like review deletion or update are not critical for the workflow.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues