MCP Code Review Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 | {} |
| prompts | {} |
| resources | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_changed_filesA | 获取变更文件的路径列表。支持两种模式: 模式一:分支对比模式(需要 target_branch) 对比开发分支与目标分支之间的代码差异。 模式二:Commit Hash 模式(需要 from_commit,不需要 target_branch) 指定一个起始 commit hash,获取该 commit 之后到开发分支的所有变更。适用于不想指定目标分支的场景。 使用流程:
描述示例:
|
| generate_code_reviewA | 生成代码Review报告。支持两种模式: 模式一:分支对比模式(需要 target_branch) 对比开发分支与目标分支的代码差异。 模式二:Commit Hash 模式(需要 from_commit,不需要 target_branch) 指定一个起始 commit hash,获取该 commit 之后到开发分支的所有变更并生成报告。 使用场景:
使用方式: 直接调用此工具即可。如果不传 file_descriptions,系统会返回变更文件列表,你需要根据每个文件的完整路径理解其功能,生成简短的中文功能描述(50字以内),然后再次调用此工具传入 file_descriptions 参数。 参数说明:
|
| list_branch_authorsA | 列出变更范围内所有提交的作者信息,帮助用户确认自己的Git用户名。支持两种模式: 模式一:分支对比模式(需要 target_branch) 模式二:Commit Hash 模式(需要 from_commit,不需要 target_branch) 使用场景:
|
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| generate-review | 生成代码Review报告(分支对比模式)- 对比开发分支与目标分支的代码差异,自动生成HTML格式的Review文档 |
| generate-review-from-commit | 生成代码Review报告(Commit Hash模式)- 从指定commit开始到开发分支的所有变更,自动生成HTML格式的Review文档 |
| list-authors | 查看提交作者列表 - 列出变更范围内所有提交的作者信息,帮助确认Git用户名 |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| 使用文档 (README) | MCP Code Review Server 的完整使用文档,包含工具说明、参数说明、配置方式和使用示例 |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have distinct primary purposes (list changed files, generate review, list authors), but generate_code_review can also return a changed file list when file_descriptions is omitted, creating a slight functional overlap with get_changed_files. This overlap is minor because the intended workflow is clearly described, but it could cause an agent to call the wrong tool first.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_changed_files, generate_code_review, list_branch_authors. The naming is uniform in style and clearly communicates each tool's action and target.
Three tools are appropriate for a specialized code review server. Each tool serves a distinct step in the workflow (identify files, generate review, identify authors), and no tool feels redundant or excessive for the scope.
The tool surface covers the essential workflow for generating code reviews: retrieving changed files, generating the review report, and listing authors for context. There are no obvious gaps within the stated purpose of the server.