Reviewer 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 |
|---|---|
| generate_specC | Generate a specification document using OpenAI O3 model |
| review_specB | Review a specification for completeness and provide critical feedback |
| review_codeC | Review code changes and provide feedback |
| run_testsB | Run standardized tests for the project (with coverage when no pattern specified) |
| run_linterC | Run standardized linter for the project |
| notifyC | Provide audio notifications to users (macOS only) |
| musicC | Control Spotify for background music (macOS only) |
| memoryA | Store and retrieve temporary key-value pairs in memory (data is lost on MCP server restart) |
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 8 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as generate_spec for document creation, review_code for code feedback, and run_tests for testing. However, review_code and run_linter could be confused as both involve code quality checks, though their descriptions clarify that review_code provides feedback while run_linter runs a standardized tool. Overall, the overlap is minimal and manageable.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, such as generate_spec, review_code, run_tests, and notify. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand. This consistency enhances usability and reduces cognitive load for agents.
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server focused on code review and development tasks. Each tool serves a specific function, such as specification handling, code review, testing, and utilities like notifications and music. This number is neither too sparse nor overwhelming, fitting the server's purpose effectively.
The tool set covers key aspects of code review and development, including specification generation, code review, linting, and testing. However, there are notable gaps, such as the lack of tools for updating or deleting specifications, managing review history, or integrating with version control systems. These omissions could limit workflow coverage and cause agent inefficiencies.