GitHub Code Reviewer
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| GITHUB_TOKEN | Yes | A GitHub Personal Access Token with repo scope |
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 |
|---|---|
| get_pull_request_diffA | Fetches the code changes (diff) of a specific Pull Request for analysis. |
| post_pr_review_commentA | Posts a code review comment on a specific line of a file changed in the PR. All comments must be written in English. |
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 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches the diff of a PR, the other posts a review comment. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: 'get_pull_request_diff' and 'post_pr_review_comment'. No inconsistencies.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a code reviewer. While the tools are focused, a typical code review workflow would benefit from additional tools like listing PRs or getting PR details.
The tool surface is incomplete for a code reviewer: it lacks CRUD operations for PRs, file listing, approval/request changes, and other common actions. Agents would face dead ends without these.