Review MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOOGLE_API_KEY | No | Your Google API key for Gemini reviews | |
| OPENAI_API_KEY | No | Your OpenAI API key for Codex reviews |
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 |
|---|---|
| check_cli_statusA | Check which code review CLIs (Codex/OpenAI and Gemini) are installed and available. Use this before requesting reviews to see what's available. |
| review_codeA | Request a code review from Codex and Gemini CLIs. Provide code directly as a string. Returns feedback from both reviewers for Claude to consider. |
| review_fileB | Request a code review of a specific file from Codex and Gemini CLIs. Returns feedback from both reviewers for Claude to consider. |
| review_directoryB | Request a code review of all files in a directory from Codex and Gemini CLIs. Returns feedback from both reviewers for Claude to consider. |
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 4 tools
The tools are mostly distinct with clear boundaries: check_cli_status verifies CLI availability, while review_code, review_directory, and review_file handle code reviews at different granularities. However, review_directory and review_file could be slightly confused as both target files, but their descriptions clarify the scope difference (directory vs. single file).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_cli_status, review_code, review_directory, and review_file. This predictability makes it easy for an agent to understand and select tools without confusion.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of code review CLI integration. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects: checking availability and reviewing code at different levels (string, file, directory). This count is neither too thin nor excessive.
The tool surface covers the core workflows for code review using CLIs: checking availability and performing reviews. A minor gap exists in not providing tools to manage or configure the CLIs (e.g., setting API keys), but agents can work around this as the essential review operations are fully supported.