Skip to main content
Glama
thangtn83

mcp-review-pr

by thangtn83
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: load_rules handles loading rules, run_quality_checks performs deterministic checks, and generate_review produces the final review. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: load_rules, run_quality_checks, generate_review.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is ideal for a focused PR review server; each tool has a clear role without being too few or too many.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full workflow: loading rules, running quality checks, and generating a comprehensive review. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

  • Average 3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavior. It only states it loads rules without indicating side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how active skills are determined, or the role of parameters like skillsDir and baseBranch.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The description does not explain any parameters beyond what is in the schema. With schema coverage at 33% (only repoPath described), the description should compensate but fails to add meaning to skillsDir or baseBranch.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool loads rules, specifying two sources: skill-specific rules for active skills and custom repo rules from rules.md. This provides a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like run_quality_checks and generate_review.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_quality_checks or generate_review. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, resource usage, or rate limits. It only states it runs analysis tools.

    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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, effectively summarizing the tool's function.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description lacks details about the ReviewOutput, return format, and parameter usage, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Key parameters like skillsDir and baseBranch remain undocumented.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool generates a complete structured PR review and runs all analysis tools, distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like run_quality_checks.

    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?

    The description implies use for comprehensive reviews but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that checks are deterministic and returns lint issues and test results, but does not mention whether the tool has side effects, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation-like 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 sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete in stating purpose and return value, but lacks detail on parameters and usage context. It does not differentiate from siblings or provide enough information for an agent to use it correctly in all scenarios.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema coverage is only 33% (only repoPath has a description). The description does not explain the roles of skillsDir or baseBranch, leaving two parameters effectively undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

    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?

    The description clearly states the verb 'run', the resource 'quality checks', and specifies the types of checks (skill linters and test suite). It distinguishes from sibling tools (load_rules, generate_review) by focusing on running checks rather than loading rules or generating reviews.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp_pr_review MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp_pr_review MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/thangtn83/mcp_pr_review'

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