Moltline Code Review MCP server

• ai_code_smell_scanFree

  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_reportFree

  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_personaFree

  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_checklistFree

  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_diffFree

  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_scanFree

  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_divewrite actionFree

  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.

• –Code scanremote-only server, no package to scann/a
• Live reliabilityremote reachable in 668ms20/20
• Tool poisoning7 tool descriptions checked15/15
• Auth qualityopen endpoint exposes 1 write-action tools with no auth3/15
• Maintenancelast push 1 days ago15/15
• Maintainer identityendpoint served from the registry-verified namespace domain8/10

Safety score

81/100

higher than 65% of 915 Security servers

Tools

7

the typical Security server has 6

Tools that change things

14%

typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break

Uptime

100%

of our recent checks; the typical remote Security server answers 100%

Response time

50 ms

faster than 95% of 547 Security servers

Moltline Code Review: common questions

Is Moltline Code Review MCP server safe?

Mostly: it is graded B (81/100). Read the Moltline Code Review safety report

How do I install Moltline Code Review?

It runs remotely at mcp.moltlinestudio.com. Add it to Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code or Claude Desktop with the snippets above, or call it through the mcp.market gateway without installing anything.

Does Moltline Code Review need an API key?

Not as far as the registry entry and our scan can tell: no credentials are declared or required.

Is Moltline Code Review maintained?

The last commit was 21 days ago (2026-10-14). The latest release is v1.2.0.

Is Moltline Code Review up?

100% of our last 28 checks got an answer. We check remote servers about four times a day.

What can I use instead of Moltline Code Review?

Servers from other publishers that do the same job: crosscheck MCP server, Secret Scanner MCP server and Secret Scanner MCP server.

How does Moltline Code Review compare with other Security MCP servers?

safety score 81/100 (higher than 65% of 915 Security servers); tools 7 (the typical Security server has 6); tools that change things 14% (typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break). Full comparison.