# Moltline Code Review

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

- name: com.moltlinestudio/codereview
- version: 1.2.0
- connection class: R0 (autonomous)
- trust: 84/100 flags: duplicate-repo
- quality: 91/100 (strong)
- owner: not claimed
- descriptor: https://api.protogrid.dev/v1/servers/com.moltlinestudio%2Fcodereview
- tools: https://api.protogrid.dev/v1/servers/com.moltlinestudio%2Fcodereview/tools

**An agent can connect right now, no human step.** Remote endpoint, no authentication, reachable on the last probe.

## Connection (mcpServers)

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codereview": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
    }
  }
}
```


## Trust

- hygiene: 60
- liveness: 98
- freshness: 85
- provenance: 85
- drivers: +repository +dns-namespace +website +reachable +uptime-95% ~updated-42d-ago -duplicate-repo(22 names)
- Derived from observable signals (official registry feed and our own credential-free probes); no code audit performed.

## Quality 91/100 (strong)

### protocol: 75 (weight 25)

- warn `protocol.modern`: newest supported version is 2025-11-25; 2026-07-28 not supported, older versions are deprecated until 2027-07-28
- n/a `protocol.stateless`: only applies to 2026-07-28 servers
- pass `protocol.transport`: streamable HTTP
- n/a `protocol.list_ttl`: only applies to 2026-07-28 servers

### authorization: n/a (weight 15)

- n/a `auth.prm`, `auth.as_metadata`, `auth.cimd`: no remote uses OAuth
- n/a `auth.secret_in_url`: no templated URL

### tool hygiene: 100 (weight 30)

- pass `tools.descriptions`: every tool has a description
- pass `tools.description_length`: descriptions are concise
- pass `tools.schemas`: every tool has an object input schema
- pass `tools.annotations`: 7 of 7 tools declare readOnlyHint or destructiveHint
- pass `tools.directory_hints`: every tool declares readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint
- pass `tools.token_cost`: about 2,025 tokens to load every tool
- pass `tools.api_dump`: tools are not a one-to-one API dump

### stability: 100 (weight 15)

- pass `stability.changes`: no tool changes in 30 days
- pass `stability.rug_pull`: no tool changed its meaning under the same name

### dependencies: n/a (weight 15)

- n/a `deps.known_vulns`, `deps.mcp_sdk_version`, `deps.resolvable`: no npm or PyPI package

- tools: 7, about 2,025 tokens to load them all
- tool set hash: f7f23eeadb9b10f3e3650e4149ef6ec6
- badge: [![protogrid quality](https://protogrid.dev/badge/com.moltlinestudio/codereview.svg)](https://protogrid.dev/servers/com.moltlinestudio/codereview)
- Checks run on what our credential-free, read-only probes observe; tools are never called and no code audit is performed.

### Tool changes

_No tool definition changes recorded._

## Remotes

- https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview (streamable-http, auth none, reachable true, uptime30d 0.954955)

## Packages

_none_

## Tools (7)

- `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_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.
- `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.
- `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.
- `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_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.