mcpbeat Sign in

Moltline Code Review MCP Server

answering

Moltline Code Review is answering right now. Last checked 11 min ago. It exposes 7 tools. Last commit 18 Aug 2026.

Risk-scan a diff, flag AI-generated-code tells, find secrets. 5 of 7 tools need no account.

Uptime history 15 days of history · worst day 98%
15 days agonow
98.9%
Uptime 24h
90 of 91 checks
7
Tools
read from the server
330 ms
Response time
average over 24h
0
Stars
last commit 18 Aug 2026

Moltline Code Review does not always answer

Over the last week it answered 99.8% of our checks. We check every 15 minutes, so you hear about the next outage within the hour — not from your users.

Three servers free · no card

Connect this server

Endpoint below is the one we actually reach during checks — not the one copied from a README. Last verified 11 min ago.

run in your terminal
claude mcp add codereview --transport http https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codereview": {
      "url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
    }
  }
}
~/.codex/config.toml
[mcp_servers.codereview]
url = "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
.cursor/mcp.json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codereview": {
      "url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
    }
  }
}
.vscode/mcp.json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codereview": {
      "url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
    }
  }
}

Available tools 7

Read directly from the server with tools/list, grouped by what they act on. If a tool disappears, we record the date.

review
review_checklist
Produce a focused pull-request review checklist for a language or stack. FREE. Covers the things that actually break in production, with extra items per language. Typical input {"language": "python"} returns {"language": "python", "checklist": ["...", ...], "note": "..."}. Use before a review, to decide what to look for. Not for reviewing actual code - pass code to review_diff or security_deep_dive. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": "<what is wrong and how to fix it>"}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
review_diff
Risk-scan a unified diff the way a senior reviewer triages a PR. FREE. Flags added lines matching known risk patterns — injection sinks, disabled TLS, bare excepts, debug prints, TODOs, N+1 hints, leaked secrets — with the new-file line number and a severity (1 low - 4 high). Typical input {"diff": "<git diff output>"} returns {"added_lines": N, "risk_score": 0-100, "verdict": "...", "secrets": [...], "findings": [{"line": N, "severity": 1-4, "issue": "...", "code": "..."}], "note": "..."}. Use on a unified diff, when only the change matters. Not for whole-file analysis (complexity_report, ai_code_smell_scan). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": "<what is wrong and how to fix it>"}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
code
ai_code_smell_scan
Flag the tells of unreviewed AI-generated code in a source file. FREE. Detects comments that restate the next line, leaked assistant preambles, placeholder TODOs, shipped 'Example usage' blocks, over-broad try/except that swallows errors, and auto-named identifiers. Typical input {"code": "<file contents>"} returns {"reviewed_confidence": 0-100, "hits": [{"smell": "...", "evidence": "<quoted snippet>"}], "reading": "...", "note": "..."}. Use on a full source file suspected of unreviewed machine authorship. Not on a diff (review_diff), and the result is a signal to check, not proof of authorship. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": "<what is wrong and how to fix it>"}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
complexity
complexity_report
Report structural complexity of a source file, function by function. FREE. Measures per-function length, max nesting depth, and a cyclomatic-style branch count (if/for/while/case/&&/||/except), flagging functions too long or too deeply nested to review confidently. Typical input {"code": "<file contents>"} returns {"functions": N, "detail": [{"name": ..., "start": N, "lines": N, "branches": N, "max_depth": N}], "flags": ["..."], "note": "..."}. Use when structure rather than correctness is the question. Not for vulnerabilities (security_deep_dive). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": "<what is wrong and how to fix it>"}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
reviewer
get_reviewer_persona
Load the Senior Reviewer persona for consistent, high-signal reviews. PREMIUM (license). The persona is a reviewing voice that is skeptical, specific, and kind — demands evidence over vibes and blocks only on real risk. Takes no arguments. Returns {"persona": ..., "identity": ..., "rules": ["...", ...], "opening_move": "..."} ready to adopt as a system prompt. Use to keep repeated reviews consistent in voice and rigor. Not for running a review - the scan tools do that. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": "<what is wrong and how to fix it>"}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
secret
secret_scan
Scan text for accidentally-committed machine credentials and private-key material. FREE. Reports each match's location and category so it can be rotated before it leaks. Detection is pattern-based over the common leaked-credential formats; it never echoes the matched value back. Typical input {"text": "<file, diff, or config contents>"} returns {"leaked": bool, "count": N, "findings": [{"line": N, "type": "<category>"}], "note": "..."}. Pattern matching only - a clean result is not proof, and every hit needs human confirmation before anyone acts on it. Not a general security review (security_deep_dive). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": "<what is wrong and how to fix it>"}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
security
security_deep_dive
Run an OWASP-oriented security pass over a source file. PREMIUM (license). Checks injection sinks, auth/session handling, crypto misuse, SSRF/deserialization, and unsafe file/path handling — each finding cites the line, the OWASP risk class, and a concrete fix direction. Typical input {"code": "<file contents>"} returns {"issues": N, "findings": [{"line": N, "class": "A03 Injection", "fix": "...", "code": "..."}], "owasp_note": "..."}. Use on one source file when vulnerabilities are the question. Not for style or structure (complexity_report), and never a substitute for a security professional on high-risk code. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": "<what is wrong and how to fix it>"}. Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Endpoints

URLTransportStateLatencyChecked
https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview streamable-http answering 206 ms 11 min ago

Alternatives to Moltline Code Review

same job, measured the same way
diffctx
by nikolay-e

Selects the minimum code an LLM needs to review a git diff

478 installs/wk local only
Cloud Agent
by joepangallo

AI software engineer — writes code, opens PRs, reviews code, generates tests, and more.

37 installs/wk local only
Overllm
by theadamdanielsson

Find the LLM/AI calls you didn't need — where plain code or a regex does the job. No model.

222 installs/wk local only
Code Guard MCP
by mlawsonking

Security scan for AI-generated code: injection, SSRF, secrets, weak crypto, unsafe deserialization.

65 installs/wk local only
Multi-MCP
by religa

Multi-model AI orchestration MCP server with code review, compare, and debate tools.

56 installs/wk local only
Aiact
by thegridwork

Scan codebases for AI usage, classify risk, generate EU AI Act compliance reports.

63 installs/wk local only
Umbra
by elberacasa

Trust score for AI-generated code: scan repos, guard agent file writes, get a 0-100 score.

80 installs/wk local only
Python Code Validator
by jkanselaar

Validates AI-generated Python: syntax, lint, security scan and deterministic repair.

3 tools answering

Moltline Code Review — questions

Answers built from our own checks of this server.

What can Moltline Code Review do?
It exposes 7 tools, read directly from the server on our last check. Among them: ai_code_smell_scan, complexity_report, get_reviewer_persona, review_checklist, review_diff, secret_scan and 1 more. The full list with descriptions is on this page — we take it from the server itself via tools/list, not from a README. How MCP servers expose tools in the first place →
Is Moltline Code Review working right now?
We send a real MCP handshake every 15 minutes. Over the last 24 hours 90 of 91 checks got a reply (98.9%), average response time 330 ms. The bar chart above shows every period we have measured.
How do I connect Moltline Code Review?
Copy the ready config from this page — we generate it for Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Codex, Cursor and VS Code, each with the file path that client actually reads. It is a remote server, so there is nothing to install — the client connects to the address.
Does Moltline Code Review need an API key?
No. Moltline Code Review completed a full MCP handshake with us as an anonymous client and listed its tools without asking for anything. All 7 of them are readable on this page. This is what we observed, not what the docs claim.
How fast is Moltline Code Review?
It answers our handshake in 330 ms on average, which is faster than 53% of all working MCP servers we measure. The comparison comes from our own checks across the whole registry, every 15 minutes.
Is Moltline Code Review open source?
Yes — it is published under the MIT licence, written in Python and 0 stars on GitHub. The source link is on this page, so you can read exactly what it does with your data before you connect it.