A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceGenerates or reviews Git unified diffs via DeepSeek API with local path validation, enabling secure patch suggestions without scanning repositories.
7
MIT
TIMI CC MCP Patch Worker
Related Servers
Alternatives to TIMI CC MCP Patch Worker
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables bounded, local coding tasks to be delegated to OpenAI-compatible models with explicit working directory and read/write paths, pre-application unified-diff validation, and optional verification commands. It routes tasks by complexity and risk, while blocking sensitive changes such as auth, payment, secrets, migrations, database, deployment, or production environments.5MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables code-review gating by converting a git diff into a typed verdict with safety probabilities, severity, and recommended actions for auto-merge or human review.11MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceTurns bounded coding tasks into reviewable Git diffs using isolated worktrees, configurable worker models, and test execution.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceRuns a multi-agent code review pipeline via MCP, analyzing git diffs for security, quality, and logic issues and returning a pass/fail verdict.-
CodePeel MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to review code diffs for bugs, security issues, and bad patterns, and generate fixes.4MIT
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Scored across 7 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct: generate_patch and review_patch handle direct patch operations, while submit/get/get/cancel_patch_job manage background jobs. Some overlap exists between get_patch_job and get_patch_result, but descriptions clarify that one returns status and the other returns the final result, so confusion is unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case. Verbs (generate, review, submit, get, cancel) are descriptive and uniformly formatted, and nouns (patch, patch_job, patch_result, capabilities) are logical and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. It covers both synchronous patch generation/review and asynchronous job management without unnecessary bloat, and each tool fits within a clear workflow.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core patch lifecycle: generate, review, submit asynchronous job, retrieve status/result, and cancel. A minor gap is the lack of a list-all-jobs or delete-patch operation, but these are not essential for the primary use case.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues