Octopus MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCTOPUS_TOKEN | Yes | Your Octopus org API token (starts with oct_). | |
| OCTOPUS_API_URL | No | Base URL of the Octopus API. Set this for self-hosted Octopus. | https://octopus-review.ai |
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 | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| octopus_statusA | Check the Octopus connection and show which organization the current API token belongs to. Use this to verify setup. |
| octopus_review_changesA | Run an Octopus code review on a unified diff (uncommitted/working changes). Pass |
| octopus_askA | Ask Octopus a question about your code or a past review. Octopus answers with context from your indexed repositories and review history. |
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 3 tools
Each tool handles a clearly distinct responsibility: verifying connectivity, reviewing a diff, and asking follow-up questions. There is zero overlap that could cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All tools follow the same snake_case convention with the `octopus_` prefix, creating a predictable pattern. The verb-like suffixes (`status`, `review_changes`, `ask`) are consistent in style and clearly convey action.
At 3 tools, the server is at the minimal end of the ideal range, yet each tool genuinely earns its place and the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. A couple of additional tools (e.g., configuration or history browsing) could make it feel more substantial.
The core workflow of connect → review → ask follow-ups is fully covered. Minor gaps include the lack of a direct way to list past reviews without using `octopus_ask` and no configuration or preference settings, but these are workable for common use cases.