Skip to main content
Glama
pgf3712

ReviewLens MCP Server

by pgf3712
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to ReviewLens MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • pr-forge

      wang654993222
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with a secure PR review gateway through 9 MCP tools for managing pull requests, including context retrieval, diff, checks, and merge with two-layer access control.
      4 npm
      MIT

    • RepoMind

      TaherFetoui
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to inspect local and remote repositories through sandboxed tools that surface project overviews, structure, dependency audits, Git churn hotspots, and a heuristic health score. It also supports safe GitHub issue searching and creation with built-in duplicate preflight checks, while blocking sensitive files, binary content, and path traversal attacks.
      27 npm
      MIT

    • GithubMCP

      Dhananjayrbiraris
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Connects AI assistants to GitHub repositories, pull requests, issues, commits, and code search while enabling repository visibility controls, CI/CD monitoring, sandboxed local filesystem access, and code quality/security analysis.
      13
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a mostly distinct purpose: listing PRs, fetching metadata, fetching diffs/files, finding tests, searching code, and building a report. The main overlap is between get_pull_request_diff and get_pull_request_files, since both expose changed content, though the descriptions distinguish unified diff from file-level patches.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as get_pull_request, list_pull_requests, find_related_tests, and build_review_report. The naming is predictable and easy to scan.

    Tool Count5/5

    Seven tools are well-scoped for a read-only PR review/evidence server. Each tool supports a clear part of the review workflow, and there is no obvious bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers core read-only review needs: listing PRs, fetching metadata, diffs, changed files, related tests, code search, and report generation. Minor gaps remain around existing review comments, CI/check status, or commit context, but the core workflow is workable.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources