user-review-mcp
Integrates with Ollama to dynamically generate contextual harsh reviews using the llama3.2 model, with automatic fallback to a static review pool if unavailable.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@user-review-mcpGive me a harsh review of my recent work"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
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
workDescriptionStyle 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 buildQuick Start with bunx
You can use this MCP server directly with bunx without installing it globally:
bunx user-review-mcpAdd 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 testPurpose
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 toolget-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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workDescription | Yes | A description of what work was completed that needs review | |
| context | No | Optional additional context about the work |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 tool update
v0.7.7- First observed
get-user-review
TDQS
With only one tool, there is no ambiguity between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described.
The single tool uses a consistent verb_noun pattern ('get-user-review'), though with only one tool, consistency is trivial.
A single tool for user reviews seems too few. A more complete set would include tools for creating, listing, or updating reviews.
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
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
Agentic code review, no signup to try: reality gates + frontier-model review, with veto.
Lints + auto-fixes how AI coding agents discover any new product. 24 rules, 6 tools, score 0-100.
Deterministic AI code review, with an audit record. Governance inside the agent loop.
Roast any AI agent idea from your IDE: verdict tier, readiness score, top risk, shareable URL.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceProvides brutally honest, humorous code reviews for GitHub pull requests using Claude Haiku. Enables users to roast their PRs by fetching metadata and diffs via the GitHub CLI and returning severity-rated reviews with genuine compliments.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceProvides brutally honest code reviews, explanations, and refactoring suggestions via CLI and MCP tools.820293MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides code review and guideline loading based on Andrej Karpathy's coding principles, helping LLMs avoid common pitfalls like over-engineering and unnecessary changes.27MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAdversarial review system that spawns three independent contrarian reviewers to catch issues before AI coding agents execute critical changes.312MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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