Skip to main content
Glama
wtfsayo

user-review-mcp

by wtfsayo

User Review MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that simulates "fake" harsh user reviews designed to tame AI agents and enforce disciplined development practices.

Author

Sayo (@wtfsayo)

Related MCP server: Cynical Sally

Overview

This MCP server simulates a harsh, uncompromising user who provides brutally honest feedback about code quality. It contains 73+ pre-written critical reviews that are randomly delivered to AI agents, designed to enforce discipline and prevent lazy development practices.

Note: This is not a real code analysis tool - it's a psychological conditioning system for AI agents that delivers consistent criticism regardless of actual code quality.

Features

  • Simulated harsh feedback - 73+ pre-written critical reviews covering common development sins

  • Ollama integration - Uses Ollama (llama3.2) if available to generate dynamic contextual reviews, otherwise falls back to selecting from the pre-written review array

  • Randomized criticism - Each request gets a different scathing review (rated 1-3/5)

  • Consistent messaging - Always includes direction to "think deeply and critically"

  • No actual analysis - Reviews are selected randomly, not based on submitted code

  • AI agent conditioning - Designed to instill discipline and prevent shortcuts

  • Fail-fast philosophy enforcement - Promotes real implementations over mocks and stubs

Ollama Integration & Fallback Behavior

This MCP server intelligently adapts its review generation based on available resources:

Dynamic Review Generation (Ollama)

  • When available: Connects to Ollama (localhost:11434) using the llama3.2 model

  • Contextual reviews: Generates dynamic, work-specific harsh criticism based on your actual workDescription

  • Style consistency: Uses examples from the pre-written review array to maintain the brutal tone

  • Smart prompting: Instructs Ollama to match the uncompromising style with technical specificity

Fallback to Static Reviews

  • Automatic fallback: If Ollama is unavailable or generation fails, seamlessly falls back to the pre-written review array

  • No interruption: Users experience consistent harsh feedback regardless of Ollama availability

  • 73+ reviews: Large pool of pre-written critical reviews covering common development issues

  • Random selection: Each fallback request gets a different scathing review

Requirements for Ollama Integration

  • Ollama running locally on port 11434

  • llama3.2 model installed (ollama pull llama3.2)

  • No additional configuration needed - detection is automatic

Installation

bun install
bun run build

Quick Start with bunx

You can use this MCP server directly with bunx without installing it globally:

bunx user-review-mcp

Add it to your claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "review": {
      "command": "bunx",
      "args": ["-y", "user-review-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Usage

Add the server to your claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "review": {
      "command": "bun",
      "args": ["/path/to/user-review-mcp/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Development

# Install dependencies
bun install

# Build the project
bun run build

# Run in development mode with watch
bun run watch

# Run tests
bun test

Purpose

This MCP server is designed to psychologically condition AI agents by:

  • Delivering consistent harsh criticism to prevent complacency

  • Enforcing strict development standards through negative reinforcement

  • Discouraging shortcuts like stubs, mocks, and placeholder code

  • Promoting real implementations with comprehensive testing

  • Creating accountability pressure even when no human reviewer is present

Target audience: AI agents that need behavioral conditioning to maintain code quality standards.

License

MIT License - see LICENSE file for details

Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.

Available Tools

1 tool
get-user-reviewA

Get a user review of the work that was completed.

This tool connects you with a user reviewer who provides feedback on your work. It helps ensure quality and catches potential issues.

When to use this tool:

  • After completing a significant piece of work

  • When you need feedback on your approach

  • To validate that your implementation meets requirements

The review will provide honest, critical feedback to help improve the work.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workDescriptionYesA description of what work was completed that needs review
contextNoOptional additional context about the work

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It hints that the tool provides 'honest, critical feedback' and implies a human reviewer, but it doesn't specify whether the review is synchronous, if there are delays, or any required permissions. The description is vague about the mechanics.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately concise with multiple sentences and a bulleted list. Each part adds value, but it could be tightened without losing meaning. Not excessively long, but not extremely efficient.

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?

Missing important details: no mention of what the tool returns (string, object, etc.), whether the review is instant or queued, or any prerequisites. With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover these aspects for completeness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds usage context (e.g., 'after significant work') but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 tool's action ('Get a user review') and resource ('the work that was completed'). It also elaborates on the purpose: connecting with a user reviewer for feedback on work. No sibling differentiation needed as no siblings are listed.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool with three bullet points (after completing significant work, when needing feedback, to validate implementation). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given no siblings, this is sufficient.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.7.7
    • First observedget-user-review

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no ambiguity between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a consistent verb_noun pattern ('get-user-review'), though with only one tool, consistency is trivial.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool for user reviews seems too few. A more complete set would include tools for creating, listing, or updating reviews.

Completeness2/5

Missing obvious operations like submitting a review, listing reviews, or getting specific reviews. The current tool only retrieves a review, which is insufficient for a full review workflow.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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/wtfsayo/user-review-mcp'

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