open-code-review
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
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| scan_directoryB | Scan a directory for AI-generated code quality issues. Detects hallucinated imports, phantom packages, stale APIs, security anti-patterns, and more. Supports TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Java, Go, and Kotlin. |
| scan_diffA | Scan git diff between two branches for code quality issues. Ideal for PR/MR review — only analyzes changed files and lines. |
| explain_issueC | Explain a code quality issue detected by OCR. Returns detailed explanation, category context, and fix guidance for the AI agent to act on. |
| heal_codeC | Load a file's source code and prepare a repair prompt for the AI agent. The agent (you) should then apply the fix based on the issue description and suggestion. Returns the file content along with the repair context. |
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 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: explain_issue provides explanations, heal_code prepares repair prompts, scan_diff analyzes git diffs, and scan_directory scans directories. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (explain_issue, heal_code, scan_diff, scan_directory) with clear, descriptive verbs that match their actions. There are no deviations in naming conventions.
Four tools are reasonable for a code review server, covering explanation, repair, diff scanning, and directory scanning. It's slightly lean but well-scoped, as each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy.
The tool set covers key code review workflows: scanning (diff and directory), explaining issues, and preparing repairs. Minor gaps might include tools for applying fixes directly or managing review states, but the core functionality is well-covered for the domain.