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
fugu-mcp
by jamesaoyama
Related Servers
Alternatives to fugu-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server that exposes Google Gemini as tools for Claude Code, enabling question answering, code analysis, multi-turn chat, and model listing.59 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server enabling Claude to consult Codex (GPT-5.x) mid-task for second opinions, plan/diff review, brainstorming, and codebase exploration via structured debates and permission-controlled interactions.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that allows Claude Code to interact with the OpenAI Codex CLI.21 npm22MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets Claude Code delegate coding tasks such as code generation, review, refactoring, and test writing to a local Ollama instance running a Qwen3 model.9MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that exposes Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 as tools (plan, critique, ask) to enable expensive model for planning and review, while cheaper models execute.-
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation2/5
Both tools serve essentially the same purpose—getting a second opinion from Sakana Fugu. The descriptions differ slightly in phrasing but offer the same core functionality, making it unclear when to use one versus the other.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: 'ask_fugu' follows a verb_noun pattern, while 'fugu_second_opinion' uses a noun_adjective pattern. Mixed naming conventions reduce predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With only two tools covering a single niche (second opinions), the set feels unnecessarily thin. The functionality could easily be served by one well-designed tool.
Completeness1/5
The tool surface is severely incomplete for any meaningful server scope. Not only is there no variety of operations, but the two tools overlap almost entirely, leaving no discernible domain coverage beyond a single redundant capability.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues