Critic-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
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| review_codeA | Read-only code critic. Analyzes the provided code snippet against its stated intent and returns a detailed, ruthless review report: missing requirements, security vulnerabilities (SQLi, XSS, privilege escalation), edge cases and performance issues (N+1, memory leaks). Never writes files — returns the report as text only. |
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 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined in great detail.
Naming consistency is not applicable as a concept with a single tool. It cannot be penalized and defaults to the highest score.
A single tool severely limits the server's functionality. While the tool is comprehensive, it would benefit from being broken down into more focused tools (e.g., review_security, review_performance).
The server covers only the 'review' aspect. For a code review tool, this is acceptable, but it lacks any supporting tools for follow-up actions like re-review, fetching additional context, or managing review sessions.