A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceA server providing programming guidelines and coding standards for multiple languages, enabling access and search of best practices for C#, Go, JavaScript, Python, and TypeScript.
3
5 npm
MIT
WordPress Code Review MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to WordPress Code Review MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that provides code validation rules and analysis for various stacks/frameworks, enabling automated code reviews and reporting directly from VS Code and other editors.-
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA server that validates GitHub repositories against configurable rules for React applications, enabling structure, configuration, dependency, and naming checks.5-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA code quality analysis server that detects security vulnerabilities, deceptive patterns, incomplete code, and highlights good practices in source code for MCP-compatible clients like Claude Code.3-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA code quality MCP server with 22 tools for deterministic linting, formatting, security scanning, and AI-assisted improvements, designed to reduce cloud LLM costs and enforce best practices.1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAutomatically enforces team coding standards in AI-assisted development by providing an MCP server that AI assistants can query for language-specific standards, style guides, and best practices.-
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of code review: fetching guidelines, performing security analysis, and validating coding standards. There is no overlap in their purposes, making them easily distinguishable for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_guidelines, security_check, validate_code). The naming is clear and predictable, aiding in tool selection.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is appropriate for a simple code review server, covering essential tasks without overwhelming the user. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover core code review operations: retrieving guidelines, security checking, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for submitting code for full review), but the surface is sufficient for basic automation.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues