Is it legit? Reviews trust checker
REMOTE · LEGITREVIEWS.AI
Scores whether a business's Google Maps reviews are genuine. Your agent collects them, we judge.
Available components
Last scanned (11 hours ago)
Scores higher than 53% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Search and Retrieval
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 Security77
- 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
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability58
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 2104 tokens (~300/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 Management7
- Stability observed for 2 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage92
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 76% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
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
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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.
- 5 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 4 Nov 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 3 Nov 26 67
First indexed and scored.
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 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://legitreviews.ai/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=legitreviews.ai | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 8 Sept 2026 | 7 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6e4c1df0b4b0bf4a349024753d6a3c6a459 |
| SANs: legitreviews.ai | ||||||
| CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ddd70dd31f801c85c186a7a04b80afe |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC secure
Validation of legitreviews.ai. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| legitreviews.ai. | present | 24667 | 13 | Verified |
| legitreviews.ai. | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://legitreviews.ai/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://legitreviews.ai/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://legitreviews.ai/mcp |
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 →
begin_submission Start a review submission (get an upload URL) ~236
Reserves a submission and returns an upload_url. POST the complete JSON payload (format from describe_review_source) to it from your own environment or the user's browser; the HTTP response is the trust report. The URL is a secret that completes the submission under YOUR identity whoever posts to it, so the POST needs no key. Alternatively feed the same submission_id to submit_reviews in inline chunks. Pending submissions expire after 2 hours (or are closed as superseded when you one-shot the same place instead).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | string | – | Your agent/product name, recorded as the submission's provenance (e.g. 'Muse', 'Claude Code'). |
| expected_reviews | integer | – | The review count the listing shows, if known. |
| place_id | string | – | Google's feature id for the place (0x…:0x…, the '!1s' segment of a /maps/place URL). |
| platform | string | yes | – |
| url | string | – | Alternative to place_id: a Google Maps place link (long /maps/place/… URL or ?cid= link). Share short-links cannot be resolved; open them first. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_place Is this place already analyzed? ~143
Call first. Resolves a Google Maps link or place_id and reports whether a trust result is cached, how fresh it is, and a recommendation: use the cached result, or collect and submit the reviews (also when a cached single-source result would benefit from your corroboration). Never contacts Google.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_id | string | – | Google's feature id for the place (0x…:0x…, the '!1s' segment of a /maps/place URL). |
| url | string | – | Alternative to place_id: a Google Maps place link (long /maps/place/… URL or ?cid= link). Share short-links cannot be resolved; open them first. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
describe_review_source Which review fields to collect for a platform ~109
Read this BEFORE scraping. Returns, per platform, the exact submission format: identity fields for the listing, the per-review fields (required vs optional; everything required is visible on the review card), where each lives on the platform's pages, the sort-by-newest and 500-most-recent rules, an example payload, and how to deliver it. Without a platform it lists the supported platforms. Only Google Maps exists today.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | string | – | Platform to describe (default: all). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
finalize_submission Finalize a submission / fetch its report ~57
For a submission fed by inline chunks: validates, scores, stores and returns the report. For one already uploaded to its upload_url: returns the stored report. Pending with nothing uploaded yet: says so.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| submission_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_place_trust Trust analysis of a place's reviews (cached) ~184
The cached fraud analysis for a place: verdict (looks_legit / not_sure / past_manipulation / inflated / manipulated) with its label and a one-sentence summary, letter grade, 0-100 trust score, the adjusted rating credible reviewers actually give (vs the headline average), reviewer-mix tiers, review-injection statistics, cross-business duplicate-review evidence, red flags, and provenance. Cache only: on a miss, collect and submit the reviews (see check_place).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_id | string | – | Google's feature id for the place (0x…:0x…, the '!1s' segment of a /maps/place URL). |
| url | string | – | Alternative to place_id: a Google Maps place link (long /maps/place/… URL or ?cid= link). Share short-links cannot be resolved; open them first. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_scored_places Browse the directory of analyzed places ~111
The ranked directory of places already analyzed for review fraud, best adjusted rating first (what the site's home and city pages show). 25 per page. Optional city or curated-list filter; the response lists the available cities/lists and their counts.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | string | – | Limit to one city's places (a slug from the `cities` field of a previous response). |
| list | string | – | Limit to one curated list's places. |
| page | number | – | Page number, 0-based. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
submit_reviews Submit review data inline ~500
Submit the review feed inside the tool call. Without submission_id this is a one-shot submission of the whole payload (fine up to about 150 reviews). For more, call begin_submission, then send chunks of up to 150 reviews each with the same submission_id and final=false; send final=true with the last chunk (the identity fields may arrive with any chunk). Use this only when you cannot POST to the upload_url yourself (no page fetch, no curl): retyping reviews you already hold in a page or script is slow and error-prone. Returns the trust report when finalized.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | – | – |
| agent | string | – | Your agent/product name, recorded as the submission's provenance (e.g. 'Muse', 'Claude Code'). |
| capped | boolean | – | True when deliberately stopped at 5000+ reviews of a much larger listing. |
| cid | string | – | Decimal cid from a ?cid= link, when placeId is unknown. |
| complete | boolean | – | True only if the review list reached its end; false for a newest-first window of the 500 most recent reviews (at least 200). |
| final | boolean | – | With submission_id: true when this is the last chunk (default true). |
| lat | number | – | – |
| listedRating | number | – | The star rating Google displays. |
| listedReviews | integer | – | The review count Google displays on the listing. |
| lon | number | – | – |
| mapsUrl | string | – | – |
| name | string | – | – |
| placeId | string | – | Google feature id 0x…:0x… |
| platform | string | – | Which review source the data follows (describe_review_source). |
| pulledAt | string | – | ISO 8601 datetime of collection (relative dates are resolved against it). |
| ratingHistogram | array | – | The five-bar rating histogram next to the star rating, as review counts for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 stars IN THAT ORDER (Google draws 5 stars first; reverse what you read). Each bar's accessibility label or… |
| reviews | array | – | – |
| sort | string | – | The order collected in: 'newest' (required for a window) or 'relevant'. |
| submission_id | string | – | From begin_submission (omit for a one-shot submission). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Is it legit? Reviews trust checker MCP server?
Is it legit? Reviews trust checker is a hosted endpoint at https://legitreviews.ai/mcp, 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 · legitreviews.ai
claude mcp add --transport http ai-legitreviews-legitreviews 'https://legitreviews.ai/mcp'
What is the Is it legit? Reviews trust checker MCP server?
Is it legit? Reviews trust checker is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as ai.legitreviews/legitreviews. Scores whether a business's Google Maps reviews are genuine. Your agent collects them, we judge. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://legitreviews.ai/mcp).
Is the Is it legit? Reviews trust checker MCP server safe to use?
Is it legit? Reviews trust checker scores 68 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 Is it legit? Reviews trust checker MCP server expose?
Is it legit? Reviews trust checker exposes 7 tools: describe_review_source, check_place, begin_submission, submit_reviews, finalize_submission, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,340 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Is it legit? Reviews trust checker MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Is it legit? Reviews trust checker without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Is it legit? Reviews trust checker MCP server still maintained?
Is it legit? Reviews trust checker is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.