Skip to main content
Glama
miniOrangeDev

WordPress Code Review MCP Server

by miniOrangeDev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v2.0.0

  • 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.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get development guidelines' without indicating side effects, access requirements, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single concise sentence without fluff. It effectively communicates the core action in a front-loaded manner. Minor improvement possible by adding return behavior.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lacks information about the return value format or content. This gap reduces completeness, as agents need to infer what is returned.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the optional 'category' parameter. The tool description adds no new meaning or context about parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The tool name 'get_guidelines' and description 'Get development guidelines from the configured source' clearly state the verb (Get) and resource (development guidelines). The action is distinct from siblings 'security_check' and 'validate_code', which serve different purposes.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives or in what context. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires network, or modifies anything. Only states it performs analysis, lacking behavioral details.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and scope. Efficiently communicates the core function.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to mention the format of results (e.g., list of issues, pass/fail), which an agent would need to plan next steps.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter 'code'. The description adds 'using configured security rules' but doesn't significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool analyzes code for security issues using configured rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'validate_code' by focusing on security, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_guidelines' or 'validate_code'. The description provides no context for appropriate use cases or limitations.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., side effects, return format, errors).

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence, very concise. While it could be expanded slightly, it contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for its brevity.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description lacks complete context. It does not explain 'configured coding standards,' how results are returned, or error handling.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Validate code') and the resource ('against configured coding standards'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_guidelines and security_check.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_guidelines, security_check). The description does not mention alternatives or contexts.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

wp-code-review-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

wp-code-review-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/miniOrangeDev/wp-code-review-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server