A
licenseA
qualityF
maintenanceA code review tool server based on Model Context Protocol (MCP) providing multi-dimensional code review and scoring.
4
6 npm
MIT
Review-Code
Related Servers
Alternatives to Review-Code
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA code review MCP server built on FastMCP, supporting security audit, style check, complexity analysis, and bug pattern detection for Python code.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for automated code review using AI agents. It analyzes code diffs or file paths for bugs, security issues, and style violations.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides local code quality analysis for AI coding assistants, supporting file analysis, git diff review, and full project scanning with quality scoring.43MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides senior-level code review, quality checks, security analysis, and refactoring suggestions directly in your editor.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceDeterministic code review MCP server that provides tools for file selection, rule matching, comment positioning, and reflection, ensuring stable review quality without LLM calls.510 npm1MIT
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Scored across 4 tools
Disambiguation4/5
The tools have distinct purposes: parse_review_score extracts scores from text, while the other three build prompts for different code review contexts (overall code, Git diff, single file). However, review_code, review_diff, and review_file could be confused as they all build LLM prompts for review, differing only in input scope. Descriptions clarify this, but the overlap in function is notable.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: parse_review_score, review_code, review_diff, review_file. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools, the count is well-scoped for a code review server. Each tool serves a clear purpose: one for parsing scores and three for building review prompts across different contexts. This is neither too thin nor too heavy for the domain.
Completeness3/5
The server covers parsing scores and building prompts for various review types, but there are notable gaps. It lacks tools for executing reviews (e.g., calling an LLM), managing review workflows, or handling feedback beyond scores. This limits agents to only prompt construction and score extraction, missing core review operations.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues