Moltline Code Review
REMOTE · MCP.MOLTLINESTUDIO.COM · SCANNED SEP 21
Risk-scan a diff, flag AI-generated-code tells, find secrets. 5 of 7 tools need no account.
Available components
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security83
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability68
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1702 tokens (~243/item across 7 items; 7 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 7 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 8 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
How do I install the Moltline Code Review MCP server?
Moltline Code Review is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · mcp.moltlinestudio.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-moltlinestudio-codereview 'https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview'
{
"mcpServers": {
"com-moltlinestudio-codereview": {
"url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"com-moltlinestudio-codereview": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.com-moltlinestudio-codereview] url = "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"com-moltlinestudio-codereview": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add com-moltlinestudio-codereview --url 'https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
com-moltlinestudio-codereview:
url: "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview" {
"McpServers": {
"com-moltlinestudio-codereview": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
}
}
} assistant mcp add com-moltlinestudio-codereview -t streamable-http -u 'https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview'
{
"mcpServers": {
"com-moltlinestudio-codereview": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 16 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 15 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 10 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 8 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 6 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 4 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 21 Sept 2026 · Probed https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=moltlinestudio.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 15 Aug 2026 | 13 Nov 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 72e09c6114448e7a0ed370fb03c277cb |
| SANs: moltlinestudio.com, *.moltlinestudio.com | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC secure
Validation of mcp.moltlinestudio.com. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| moltlinestudio.com. | present | 2371 | 13 | Verified |
| mcp.moltlinestudio.com. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=15576000; includeSubDomains |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline'; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline'; img-src 'self' data:; font-src 'self' data:; connect-src 'self' https://api.moltlinestudio.com https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com; form-action 'self'; frame-ancestors 'none'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none'; upgrade-insecure-requests |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
ai_code_smell_scan Ai Code Smell Scan ~246
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | string | yes | Full source text to scan, any language; paste the file contents as a single string. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
complexity_report Complexity Report ~253
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | string | yes | Full source text to analyze, pasted as a single string. |
| language | string | – | Optional language hint, e.g. "python" or "javascript"; "auto" (default) detects from syntax. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
get_reviewer_persona Get Reviewer Persona ~170
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.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
review_checklist Review Checklist ~202
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | string | – | Language or stack to tailor for: "python", "javascript", "typescript", "go", "sql", or "general" (default). Unknown values fall back to the general checklist. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
review_diff Review Diff ~275
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| diff | string | yes | A unified diff exactly as produced by `git diff` — text with @@ hunk headers and +/- line prefixes. Only added (+) lines are scanned. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
secret_scan Secret Scan ~231
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | string | yes | The file, diff, or config contents to scan, pasted as a single string. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
security_deep_dive Security Deep Dive ~237
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | string | yes | Full source text to audit, pasted as a single string; any common language. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
What is the Moltline Code Review MCP server?
Moltline Code Review is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.moltlinestudio/codereview. Risk-scan a diff, flag AI-generated-code tells, find secrets. 5 of 7 tools need no account. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/codereview).
Is the Moltline Code Review MCP server safe to use?
Moltline Code Review scores 87 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Moltline Code Review MCP server expose?
Moltline Code Review exposes 7 tools: review_diff, ai_code_smell_scan, complexity_report, secret_scan, review_checklist, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,614 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Moltline Code Review MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Moltline Code Review without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Moltline Code Review MCP server still maintained?
Moltline Code Review is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 21 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.