ReplyOnTheFly
REMOTE · WWW.REPLYONTHEFLY.COM
Writes replies to Google, Yelp and other customer reviews, and texts asking for a review.
Available components
Last scanned (14 hours ago)
Scores higher than 60% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Marketing and SEO
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 Security80
- 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. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. 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 check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability35
- 0% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Fail
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 686 tokens (~228/item across 3 items; 2 tools + 1 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 Management47
- Stability observed for 14 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
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 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 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
- Supports UI / widget rendering.Pass
Checks we ran (14)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
- Capabilities
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
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 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 22 Oct 26 66
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://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=www.replyonthefly.com | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 9 Oct 2026 | 7 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 6325849fb7c6594277892c0cf57d792b8f0 |
| SANs: www.replyonthefly.com | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of www.replyonthefly.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| replyonthefly.com. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
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=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://www.replyonthefly.com/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 →
write_review_reply Write a review reply ~356
Writes a reply a business owner can post under a customer review on Google, Yelp, Facebook, TripAdvisor or Trustpilot. Use it when someone shares a review of their business and wants a response to it, including angry or negative reviews. The reply follows the star rating: it thanks happy customers, and for low ratings it acknowledges the problem without arguing and offers to make it right. It does not post anything anywhere; the owner copies the reply and posts it themselves. It does not write reviews.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| alternate | boolean | – | Set true to get a differently worded version of a reply already written for the same review. |
| business_name | string | yes | Name of the business being reviewed. |
| business_type | string | – | What kind of business it is, e.g. "dentist", "pizza restaurant", "plumber". |
| length | string | – | concise is 1 to 2 sentences, standard 2 to 3, detailed 3 to 4. Defaults to standard. |
| owner_notes | array | – | Facts or wishes the owner gave for this reply, e.g. "we fixed the AC last week" or "sign off as Maria". Only include what the owner actually said. |
| platform | string | – | Where the review was posted. Defaults to google. |
| review_text | string | – | The review exactly as the customer wrote it. Leave out for a rating with no text. |
| reviewer_name | string | – | The reviewer's display name, if shown. Leave out if unknown; the reply will not invent one. |
| star_rating | integer | yes | Star rating the customer gave, 1 to 5. |
| tone | string | – | Voice of the reply. Defaults to friendly. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_name | string | yes | – |
| platform | string | yes | – |
| reply | string | yes | – |
| star_rating | integer | yes | – |
No examples provided.
write_review_request_message Write a review request message ~208
Writes short messages a business owner can text or email to a customer to ask for a Google review, adapted to the type of business. Use it when someone wants more Google reviews or asks how to ask a customer for a review. Returns up to three ready-to-send options with the owner's review link at the end. It does not send anything. The messages never offer incentives, which Google prohibits.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_name | string | yes | Name of the business asking for the review. |
| business_type | string | – | What kind of business it is, e.g. "plumber", "hair salon", "restaurant". Picks the right wording. |
| channel | string | – | text (SMS or WhatsApp) or email. Defaults to text. |
| customer_first_name | string | – | The customer's first name, if the owner gave it. |
| review_link | string | – | The business's Google review link if the owner has it (https://...). Leave out and the messages use a placeholder. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | string | yes | – |
| options | array | yes | – |
| review_link_needed | boolean | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the ReplyOnTheFly MCP server?
ReplyOnTheFly is a hosted endpoint at https://www.replyonthefly.com/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 · www.replyonthefly.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly 'https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp'
What is the ReplyOnTheFly MCP server?
ReplyOnTheFly is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.replyonthefly/replyonthefly. Writes replies to Google, Yelp and other customer reviews, and texts asking for a review. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp).
Is the ReplyOnTheFly MCP server safe to use?
ReplyOnTheFly scores 73 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 ReplyOnTheFly MCP server expose?
ReplyOnTheFly exposes 2 tools: write_review_reply, write_review_request_message. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 564 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ReplyOnTheFly MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to ReplyOnTheFly without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the ReplyOnTheFly MCP server still maintained?
ReplyOnTheFly 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.
What did VerifyMCP test on the ReplyOnTheFly MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 14 checks on ReplyOnTheFly, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 10 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.