Skip to main content
Glama
primadonna-gpters

AgentSkills MCP Server

code_review

Analyze code for security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and quality improvements. Get a detailed report with severity ratings and actionable suggestions.

Instructions

Analyze code for issues, security vulnerabilities, and improvement suggestions. Returns a score, summary, list of issues with severity, and positive observations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe source code to review (max 50,000 characters)
languageNoProgramming language of the code (e.g., 'typescript', 'python', 'go'). Optional.
focusNoReview focus area: 'security', 'performance', 'quality', or 'all' (default)all

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the "code_review" MCP tool, which extracts arguments and calls the /api/skills/code-review API endpoint.
    case "code_review": {
      const { code, language, focus = "all" } = args as {
        code: string;
        language?: string;
        focus?: string;
      };
    
      const body: Record<string, unknown> = { code, focus };
      if (language) body.language = language;
    
      const result = await callApi("/api/skills/code-review", body);
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:88-104 (registration)
    Tool registration for "code_review" in the MCP server list of tools.
    name: "code_review",
    description:
      "Analyze code for issues, security vulnerabilities, and improvement suggestions. " +
      "Returns a score, summary, list of issues with severity, and positive observations.",
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        code: {
          type: "string",
          description: "The source code to review (max 50,000 characters)",
        },
        language: {
          type: "string",
          description:
            "Programming language of the code (e.g., 'typescript', 'python', 'go'). Optional.",
        },
        focus: {
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It compensates for missing output schema by describing return values (score, summary, issues, observations). However, lacks operational details like side effects, code privacy/storage policies, or rate limits expected for a code submission tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second describes output. No redundancy or waste. Front-loaded with the most critical information (what it does) before return value details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Good coverage given constraints: describes output shape to compensate for missing output schema, and all parameters are well-defined in schema. Could improve by noting privacy considerations when submitting code or supported language nuances, but functionally complete for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with full descriptions for all 3 parameters including enums and defaults. Description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the comprehensive schema makes additional description unnecessary. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('code') with scope covering issues, security, and improvements. Clearly distinguishes from siblings 'business_data' and 'web_search' by domain (code analysis vs. business data/web search).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the clear domain description (code analysis), but lacks explicit guidelines on when to use vs. siblings or prerequisites like 'use when you need static analysis' or 'do not use for runtime debugging'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/primadonna-gpters/agentskills-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server