No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 13 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose with clear boundaries: list_venues, list_assignments, get_submission, get_pdf, get_reviews, get_discussion, get_review_status, submit_review, submit_meta_review, edit_review, post_comment, message_reviewer, and confirm_submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools; for example, get_reviews retrieves existing reviews while submit_review creates new ones, and confirm_submission is uniquely for finalizing pending actions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (e.g., list_venues, get_submission, submit_review, post_comment). The verbs are descriptive and appropriate for their actions (list, get, submit, post, edit, message, confirm), and there are no deviations in style or convention across the 13 tools.
With 13 tools, this server is well-scoped for the OpenReview domain, covering key workflows like venue listing, assignment management, submission retrieval, review/meta-review creation and editing, commenting, messaging, and confirmation. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function without bloat, and the count aligns with typical MCP servers (3-15 tools).
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the OpenReview peer-review domain, including CRUD-like operations: listing venues and assignments, retrieving submissions and related data (PDFs, reviews, discussions), creating and editing reviews/meta-reviews/comments/messages, and confirming submissions. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full review workflows from start to finish without dead ends.