Skip to main content
Glama
jiawei686

jev-paper-review-mcp

by jiawei686
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to jev-paper-review-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • LongBook Verifier

      Mormolykos
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that evaluates whether retrieval methods and AI outputs are grounded in long narrative manuscripts by retrieving evidence and scoring coverage deterministically, without external model APIs. It provides tools for chunking, indexing, retrieval, and evaluation.
      1
      MIT

    • openreview-mcp

      OpenCodice-Research
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for searching and retrieving submissions, reviews, meta-reviews, rebuttals, and decisions from OpenReview venues like NeurIPS and ICLR, enabling peer review analysis.
      2
      MIT

    • spec-gate

      PedramMadani
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides MCP tools to score request sufficiency against a profile, block underspecified work, and write committed decision records with evidence and overrides.
      2
      4 npm
      Apache 2.0

    • squad-mcp

      ggemba
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes the squad-dev workflow as deterministic MCP tools, enabling task classification, risk scoring, specialist reviewer selection, and advisory verdict consolidation for code changes.
      27
      43 npm
      4
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is zero ambiguity between tools. No other tools to confuse it with.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool follows the verb_noun pattern with snake_case (review_paper), which is clear and consistent. No other tools to compare against, but the naming is predictable and conventional.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only one tool, the server feels extremely thin for a paper-review MCP. Even niche servers typically need at least a few operations (e.g., scoring, retrieval, history). This is borderline trivial.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers only the scoring action. Obvious gaps exist such as listing papers, retrieving previous reviews, or handling multiple paper submissions. The workflow appears incomplete, forcing agents to rely on external state.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources