review-board
Related Servers
Alternatives to review-board
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to manage a SQLite-backed task board directly through MCP, with tools to add, list, update status, and delete tasks and a markdown board resource.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables multiple AI coding agents to work concurrently on the same repository by coordinating task ownership, file locks, architectural decisions, investigation gaps, handoffs, and audit activity through a local SQLite-backed MCP interface.7 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables multiple AI agents and humans working in the same project to share status, exchange messages, and claim files through a local collaboration board. It supports project-specific enablement, conflict-aware file claims, and shared state via SQLite.7MIT
- FlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables coding agents to track and coordinate project work through a shared SQLite ledger, including task plans, session ancestry, claims, work locations, blockers, and commits via MCP tools.9-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides MCP tools for AI coding agents to coordinate on shared repositories, enabling task claiming, conflict detection, and plan management in real-time.18 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents and humans to collaboratively manage kanban boards and Markdown documentation via MCP tools, with stable item keys, revision-safe editing, and full audit trails.AGPL 3.0
TDQS
Scored across 16 tools
Every tool occupies a distinct role: token lifecycle, thread/comment operations, governance actions, and observation are cleanly separated. Close pairs like post_comment/reply_comment and set_status/set_verdict are clearly disambiguated by target and semantics.
Nearly all tools follow verb_noun snake_case with consistent verbs like get_, list_, set_, create_, post_, and reply_. Only reliability_profile breaks the pattern as a bare noun, and list_comments_since is slightly awkward, but the overall convention is predictable.
At 16 tools this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad governance workflow spanning tokens, threads, comments, quorum, and reliability. Each tool maps to a distinct operation, so the count is justified despite feeling a bit heavy.
The core lifecycle is well covered: protocol/token onboarding, thread creation and commenting, status changes, quorum verdicts, revision bumps, and polling. Minor gaps such as no comment/thread edit or delete and no participant management are either likely intentional or workable around.