Frontend Review MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| MODEL | No | Optional. The vision model to use first before falling back to other models. Default is Qwen/Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct | |
| HYPERBOLIC_API_KEY | Yes | Your Hyperbolic API key for accessing vision models |
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
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| reviewEditB | Perform a visual review of a UI edit request. The 'before screenshot' is a screenshot of the page before the edit, and the 'after screenshot' is the screenshot of the page after the edit. You will recieve either a yes or no response, indicating whether the edit visually satisfies the edit request. If no, it will provide a detailed explanation of why the edit does not satisfy the request so you can continue to work on it. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool has a clear, singular purpose focused on visual review of UI edits.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'reviewEdit' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and stands alone without any conflicting conventions.
A single tool is too few for a server named 'Frontend Review MCP', which suggests a broader scope for frontend review tasks. This minimal toolset feels thin and incomplete for the implied domain.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for frontend review. It only covers visual validation of UI edits, lacking tools for other aspects like accessibility checks, performance reviews, code analysis, or comparison of multiple edits, which are typical in this domain.