Skip to main content
Glama
xyehya

AI Peer Review MCP Server

by xyehya

AI Peer Review MCP Server

Enhance your local LLM responses with real-time peer review from Google Gemini

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables local language models to request peer review feedback from Google Gemini, dramatically improving response quality through AI collaboration.

๐ŸŒŸ Features

  • Real-time peer review from Google Gemini for any local LLM response

  • Manual trigger system - user controls when to request peer review

  • Detailed feedback analysis - accuracy, completeness, clarity, and improvement suggestions

  • Comprehensive logging - see exactly what feedback Gemini provides

  • Privacy-conscious - only shares content when explicitly requested

  • Free to use - leverages Google Gemini's free tier

  • Easy integration - works with any MCP-compatible local LLM setup

Related MCP server: deep-thinking-engine

๐ŸŽฏ Use Cases

  • Fact-checking complex or technical responses

  • Quality improvement for educational content

  • Writing enhancement for creative tasks

  • Technical validation for coding explanations

  • Research assistance with multiple AI perspectives

๐Ÿ“‹ Prerequisites

  • Python 3.8+ installed on your system

  • LMStudio (or another MCP-compatible LLM client)

  • Google AI Studio account (free) for Gemini API access

  • Local LLM with tool calling support (e.g., Llama 3.1, Mistral, Qwen)

๐Ÿš€ Quick Start

1. Get Google Gemini API Key

  1. Visit Google AI Studio

  2. Sign in with your Google account

  3. Click "Get API key" โ†’ "Create API key in new project"

  4. Copy your API key (starts with AIza...)

2. Install the MCP Server

# Clone or create project directory
git clone https://github.com/your-repo/ai-peer-review-mcp # Replace with the actual repo URL
cd ai-peer-review-mcp

# Create a virtual environment (recommended)
python3 -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate  # On Windows use `venv\Scripts\activate`

# Install dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt

# Create environment file
cp .env.example .env
# Now, edit the .env file and add your API key:
# GEMINI_API_KEY=your_actual_api_key_here

3. Review Server Files

requirements.txt:

requests
python-dotenv

server.py: (See full code in the repository)

4. Configure LMStudio or any other supported MCP Host (e.g Claude Desktop)

Add this configuration to your LMStudio MCP settings:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ai-peer-review": {
      "command": "python",
      "args": ["server.py"],
      "cwd": "/path/to/your/ai-peer-review-mcp",
      "env": {
        "GEMINI_API_KEY": "your_actual_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Finding MCP Settings in LMStudio:

  • Look for: Settings โ†’ MCP Servers

  • Or: Tools & Integrations โ†’ MCP Configuration

  • Or: Program button โ†’ Edit MCP JSON

5. Test the Setup

  1. Restart LMStudio after adding the MCP configuration

  2. Start a new chat in LMStudio

  3. Ask any question: "What is quantum computing?"

  4. Request peer review: "Use the ai_peer_review tool to check and improve your answer"

๐Ÿ“š Usage Examples

Basic Usage

User: What causes climate change?

LLM: [Provides initial response about greenhouse gases...]

User: Use AI Peer Review to verify and improve that answer

LLM: [Calls ai_peer_review tool, receives feedback, provides enhanced response]

Technical Questions

User: Explain how neural networks work

LLM: [Initial technical explanation...]

User: Can you use ai_peer_review to make sure the explanation is accurate?

LLM: [Enhanced response with better technical details and examples]

Creative Tasks

User: Write a short story about AI

LLM: [Initial creative writing...]

User: Use peer review to improve the story structure and clarity

LLM: [Improved story with better narrative flow and character development]

๐Ÿ”ง Configuration Options

Environment Variables

  • GEMINI_API_KEY - Your Google Gemini API key (required)

Customization

You can modify the peer review prompt in server.py to focus on specific aspects:

review_prompt = f"""PEER REVIEW REQUEST:
# Customize this section for your specific needs
# Examples:
# - Focus on technical accuracy for coding questions
# - Emphasize creativity for writing tasks
# - Prioritize safety for medical/legal topics
...
"""

๐Ÿ“Š Monitoring and Logs

The server creates detailed logs in mcp-server.log:

# Watch logs in real-time
tail -f mcp-server.log

# View recent activity
cat mcp-server.log | tail -50

Log Information Includes:

  • Tool calls from LMStudio

  • Requests sent to Gemini

  • Raw Gemini responses

  • Parsed feedback

  • Error details

๐Ÿ› Troubleshooting

Common Issues

"Tool not available"

  • Verify MCP server configuration in LMStudio

  • Ensure your local model supports tool calling

  • Restart LMStudio after configuration changes

"GEMINI_API_KEY not found"

  • Check your .env file exists and has the correct key

  • Verify API key is valid in Google AI Studio

  • Ensure environment variable is properly set in LMStudio config

"Rate limit exceeded"

  • Google Gemini free tier has generous limits

  • Wait a moment and try again

  • Check Google AI Studio quota usage

"Model not found"

  • API model names change over time

  • Update GEMINI_API_URL in server.js if needed

  • Check Google's latest API documentation

Debug Mode

Run the server manually to see detailed output. Make sure your virtual environment is active.

export GEMINI_API_KEY=your_api_key_here
python server.py

๐Ÿ”’ Privacy and Security

  • Data sharing only on request - content is only sent to Gemini when explicitly triggered

  • No persistent storage - conversations are not stored or logged beyond current session

  • API key security - keep your Gemini API key private and secure

  • Local processing - MCP runs entirely on your machine

๐Ÿšง Limitations

  • Requires tool-calling models - basic instruction-following models won't work

  • Internet connection required - needs access to Google Gemini API

  • Rate limits - subject to Google Gemini API quotas (free tier is generous)

  • Language support - optimized for English, other languages may work but aren't tested

๐Ÿ›ฃ๏ธ Roadmap

  • Multi-provider support - Add Groq, DeepSeek, and other AI APIs

  • Smart routing - Automatic provider selection based on question type

  • Confidence thresholds - Auto-trigger peer review for uncertain responses

  • Custom review templates - Domain-specific review criteria

  • Usage analytics - Track improvement metrics and API usage

  • Batch processing - Review multiple responses at once

๐Ÿค Contributing

We welcome contributions! Here's how to help:

Development Setup

git clone https://github.com/your-repo/ai-peer-review-mcp # Replace with your repo URL
cd ai-peer-review-mcp

# Create and activate virtual environment
python3 -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate # On Windows: venv\Scripts\activate

# Install dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt

# Set up your environment
cp .env.example .env
# --> Add your GEMINI_API_KEY to the .env file

echo "Development environment ready. Run with 'python server.py'"

Ways to Contribute

  • ๐Ÿ› Bug reports - Open issues for any problems you encounter

  • ๐Ÿ’ก Feature requests - Suggest new capabilities or improvements

  • ๐Ÿ“– Documentation - Improve setup guides, add examples

  • ๐Ÿ”ง Code contributions - Submit pull requests for fixes or features

  • ๐Ÿงช Testing - Try with different models and report compatibility

  • ๐ŸŒ Localization - Help support more languages

Contribution Guidelines

  1. Fork the repository

  2. Create a feature branch (git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)

  3. Make your changes with clear, descriptive commits

  4. Add tests if applicable

  5. Update documentation for any new features

  6. Submit a pull request with a clear description

๐Ÿ“„ License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

๐Ÿ™ Acknowledgments

  • Anthropic - For creating the Model Context Protocol standard

  • Google - For providing the Gemini API

  • LMStudio - For excellent MCP integration

  • Community contributors - Everyone who helps improve this project

๐Ÿ“ž Support

๐ŸŒŸ Star History

If this project helps you, please consider giving it a star on GitHub! โญ


Made with โค๏ธ for the AI community

Available Tools

1 tool
ai_peer_reviewB

Get peer review feedback from Google Gemini on your response to help improve accuracy and completeness

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_questionYesThe original question asked by the user
my_answerYesYour initial response that needs peer review

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that feedback comes 'from Google Gemini' but does not describe key behavioral traits such as response format, latency, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential costs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by contributing essential information.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that involves AI feedback. It does not explain what the output will look like (e.g., structured feedback, scores, or text), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling or limitations. For a tool with this complexity, more contextual information is needed to ensure proper usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('user_question' and 'my_answer'). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get peer review feedback from Google Gemini on your response to help improve accuracy and completeness.' It specifies the verb ('Get peer review feedback'), resource ('from Google Gemini'), and goal ('improve accuracy and completeness'). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no explicit differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 usage context ('on your response to help improve accuracy and completeness'), suggesting it should be used when seeking quality improvement for an answer. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other methods (e.g., self-review or other AI models) and does not specify any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat vague.

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.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedai_peer_review

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently follows a consistent naming pattern. The tool name 'ai_peer_review' uses snake_case and clearly describes its function without any conflicting conventions.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a server named 'AI Peer Review MCP Server', which suggests a broader scope for peer review functionality. This minimal toolset limits the server's utility and feels incomplete for its apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

The server is severely incomplete for peer review operations. It only provides feedback generation via one tool, lacking essential functions like managing reviews, listing past reviews, or handling different review types, which are expected in a peer review domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers