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/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<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="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.5 | $0.00148 | $0.00546 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 2mo 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.
- 2mo 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 (15 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 370 tokens to every session and 1,366 once invoked, about $0.0015 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
security-reviewer
Security vulnerability detection and remediation specialist. Use PROACTIVELY after writing code that handles user input, authentication, API endpoints, or sensitive data. Flags secrets, SSRF, injection, unsafe crypto, and OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ 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.
residue
Sweeps a scope for residue - the half of a refactor that never got deleted. Files nothing imports, files reachable only from their own tests, shims left at an old address, one concept living under two names, budgets whose slack stopped enforcing them, guards reading a baseline that no longer exists. Reports leads with…
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…