# ReplyOnTheFly (remote · www.replyonthefly.com)

Writes replies to Google, Yelp and other customer reviews, and texts asking for a review.

- Trust score: 73/100 (medium)
- Change this week: +3
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-11-06

## Components

- remote · `www.replyonthefly.com`: 73/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly/www.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly/www)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `1.0.1`

## Trust breakdown

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. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-11-06.

- **Endpoint Security**: 80/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - 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.
  - HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path.
  - The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 35/100
  - 0% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (good).
  - 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.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 50/100
  - Stability observed for 15 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
- **Tool Coverage**: 100/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 100% of tool parameters carry a description.
  - Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.
- **Tool Safety**: 100/100
  - No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.
  - We read all 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.
  - An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.
  - Supports UI / widget rendering.

## Install

### 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.

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly 'https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp'
```

### Cursor

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly": {
      "url": "https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### VS Code

```json
{
  "servers": {
    "com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly]
url = "https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly --url 'https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp' --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly:
    url: "https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp"
```

### Netclaw

```json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly": {
      "Transport": "http",
      "Url": "https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Vellum

```bash
assistant mcp add com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly -t streamable-http -u 'https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp'
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-11-06 (score 73, 0)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-11-05 (score 73, +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.

### 2026-11-03 (score 72, +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.

### 2026-10-31 (score 71, +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.

### 2026-10-29 (score 70, +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.

### 2026-10-27 (score 69, +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.

### 2026-10-25 (score 68, +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.

### 2026-10-23 (score 67, +1)

- [functional improvement] Stability: unverified → 0.03

## MCP tools (2)

### `write_review_reply` (~356 tokens)

Write a review reply

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.

Input parameters:

- `alternate` (boolean): Set true to get a differently worded version of a reply already written for the same review.
- `business_name` (string, required): 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, required): Star rating the customer gave, 1 to 5.
- `tone` (string): Voice of the reply. Defaults to friendly.

Output parameters:

- `business_name` (string)
- `platform` (string)
- `reply` (string)
- `star_rating` (integer)

### `write_review_request_message` (~208 tokens)

Write a review request message

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.

Input parameters:

- `business_name` (string, required): 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.

Output parameters:

- `channel` (string)
- `options` (array)
- `review_link_needed` (boolean)

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly/www#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-11-06: 73
- 2026-11-05: 73
- 2026-11-04: 72
- 2026-11-03: 72
- 2026-11-02: 71
- 2026-11-01: 71
- 2026-10-31: 71
- 2026-10-30: 70
- 2026-10-29: 70
- 2026-10-28: 69
- 2026-10-27: 69
- 2026-10-26: 68
- 2026-10-25: 68
- 2026-10-24: 67
- 2026-10-23: 67
- 2026-10-22: 66

## Common questions

### 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 6 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.

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://www.replyonthefly.com/mcp
- Repository: https://github.com/BYS-Ventures/replyonthefly-mcp
- Website: https://www.replyonthefly.com/ai-connector
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly/www.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly/www/changelog.json
- Trust report (JSON): https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly/www.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-replyonthefly-replyonthefly/www