F
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceMCP server for AI-assisted code review, enabling integration with the DevReview tool.
1
-
coderocket-mcp
by mlgraham
Related Servers
Alternatives to coderocket-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that enables Claude Code to delegate tasks to DeepSeek and other LLMs, offering 20 tools for code review, analysis, testing, and code generation.201-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that lets Claude Code ask GPT Codex for adversarial planning, code review, debugging, research, and risk triage without leaving your project workflow.913 npm2MIT
- AlicenseCqualityFmaintenanceSingle MCP server providing over 500 developer tools for Claude Code, covering security, testing, documentation, and more.500546 npm3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that automatically injects relevant skills, project memory, and routes complex tasks to specialist agents into AI coding tools like Claude, eliminating cold starts and prompt engineering.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides agentic code review powered by OpenAI-compatible models, designed for use with Claude Code.1MIT
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Scored across 9 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: repo listing vs. repo details, deployment generation, PR creation, review listing vs. details, account status, health check, and feedback submission. There is no overlap, and the boundaries between list_repos and repo_details are clear (summary vs. comprehensive).
Naming Consistency3/5
The tool names mix verb-first patterns (list_repos, create_pr, deploy_repo, list_reviews, get_review) with noun-first patterns (account_status, health_check, generation_feedback, repo_details). This inconsistency, while not causing confusion, prevents a predictable naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—CI/CD workflow generation, PR creation, code reviews, and account management. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is within the ideal range.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle is covered: analyze repo, generate workflow, create PR, submit feedback, and access reviews. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct listing/updating of individual workflows and no way to comment on or resolve review comments, but these are non-critical and the surface is largely complete.
Maintenance
ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues