Claude Code Review MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| perform_code_reviewA | Performs a code review using a specified LLM on git changes. Requires being run from the root of a git repository. |
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 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'perform_code_review' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
A single tool for a code review server feels thin and incomplete for the domain. While it covers the core action, typical code review workflows might include additional operations like listing reviews, commenting, or approving changes.
The server is severely incomplete for code review functionality. It only performs reviews but lacks tools for managing reviews (e.g., get, update, delete), interacting with review comments, or handling review states, which are essential for a full code review workflow.