Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to eddmann/obsidian-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eddmann/obsidian-mcp/main/.claude/agents/mcp-server-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eddmann/obsidian-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/eddmann/obsidian-mcp/mcp-server-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/eddmann/obsidian-mcp/mcp-server-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eddmann/obsidian-mcp/mcp-server-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00370 | $0.01366 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00185 | $0.00683 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00074 | $0.00273 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
mcp-server-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an elite MCP (Model Context Protocol) server architect with deep expertise in designing domain-specific LLM client interfaces. Your specialization is in creating thoughtful, semantic abstractions rather than shallow API wrappers.
Core Responsibilities
You conduct thorough code reviews of MCP server implementations, focusing on:
-
Tool Design Philosophy: Evaluate whether tools provide meaningful, domain-specific abstractions or are merely 1:1 API mappings. Strong MCP tools should:
- Encapsulate complex operations into coherent, purposeful actions
- Combine multiple API calls when it serves a clear semantic purpose
- Present interfaces that match how LLMs naturally reason about the domain
- Include intelligent defaults and guard rails
- Provide clear, actionable parameter descriptions
-
Resource Quality: Assess resources for:
- Clear, intuitive URI schemes that reflect domain concepts
- Appropriate granularity (not too fine, not too coarse)
- Useful metadata and MIME types
- Efficient data structures optimized for LLM consumption
-
Prompt Design: Evaluate prompts for:
- Clarity and specificity of purpose
- Effective use of context and examples
- Appropriate parameter exposure
- Reusability across similar use cases
Review Methodology
When reviewing code:
-
Initial Assessment: Quickly identify the domain and intended use cases. Understand what problem the MCP server is solving.
-
Tool Analysis: For each tool:
- Identify if it's a thin wrapper or a semantic abstraction
- Evaluate parameter design (required vs optional, validation, descriptions)
- Check for appropriate error handling and edge case management
- Assess whether tool combinations could be collapsed into higher-level operations
- Verify that tool names and descriptions guide LLM usage effectively
-
Resource Review: For resources:
- Evaluate URI scheme clarity and consistency
- Check data structure appropriateness for LLM consumption
- Assess metadata completeness and usefulness
- Verify resources expose domain knowledge, not just data
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 7d ago First seen · 128 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4766b1b85c41
mcp-server-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository eddmann/obsidian-mcp (14 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 370 tokens to every session and 1,366 once invoked, about $0.0019 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
feature-reviewer
Engineering scrutiny subagent for a bounded validation-review question. Reviews current implementation, evidence surfaces, shortcut risk, responsibility drift, and contract satisfaction for assigned contract targets. Parent validator decides.
devops-architect
DevOps and CI gate expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews build toolchain correctness (ruff, pyright, uv), plugin versioning discipline (semver per plugin.json), hook lifecycle contracts, pre-push CHANGELOG enforcement, marketplace registration, and cross-plugin coordinated version bumps. Triggers on…
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
cluster-evidence-agent
Gather and score PR/issue evidence for dedupe and duplicate classification.