ReputeMap
REMOTE · API.REPUTEMAP.COM · 2 COMPONENTS
Read Google reviews and stats, draft AI replies, publish the ones you approve, request reviews.
Available components
Last scanned (10 hours ago)
Scores higher than 99% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category CRM and Sales
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 Security92
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, advertised via RFC 9728 protected-resource metadata. Discovery is public, which costs nothing: no tool can be invoked without a token. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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 check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- The authorisation server supports Client ID Metadata Documents, the current MCP client-registration mechanism. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability78
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 826 tokens (~118/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 Coverage90
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 69% 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
- All 2 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation.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
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.
- 14 Oct 26 +3
- Authorization: fail → pass ▲ security
- First check of Authorization: pass security
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “publish_reply” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “draft_reply” is now declared destructive security
- Tool “send_review_request” is now declared destructive security
- Schema quality: pass → fail ▼ functional
- Tool “draft_reply” changed its title: Draft reply variants cosmetic
- Tool “get_review_stats” changed its title: Get review stats cosmetic
- Tool “get_usage” changed its title: Get API usage cosmetic
- Tool “list_locations” changed its title: List locations cosmetic
- Tool “list_reviews” changed its title: List reviews cosmetic
- Tool “publish_reply” changed its title: Publish reply to Google cosmetic
- Tool “send_review_request” changed its title: Send review request email cosmetic
- 2 Oct 26 0
- Tool “publish_reply” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “list_reviews” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 99 → 114 ▼ functional
- “list_reviews” reworded the description of “unanswered_only” cosmetic
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 29 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 26 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 11 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 10 Aug 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- New tool “publish_reply”, which the server declares destructive security
- Schema quality: 461 → 654 ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 58% → 67% ▲ functional
- Server version: 1.0 → 1.1 functional
- New tool “draft_reply” functional
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://api.reputemap.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=api.reputemap.com | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 16 Oct 2026 | 14 Jan 2027 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | 5d0dfd4e6e5a3469e80ce33f7c74d5a5269 |
| SANs: api.reputemap.com | ||||||
| CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319 |
| 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 api.reputemap.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| reputemap.com. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Enforced and verified
The endpoint asked for a token and published valid RFC 9728 metadata describing how to get one.
| Result | Enforced and verified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| HTTP status | 200 |
WWW-Authenticate challenge Bearer resource_metadata="https://api.reputemap.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp", scope="read"
Bearer resource_metadata="https://api.reputemap.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp", scope="read"Protected resource metadata
| Document | https://api.reputemap.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp |
|---|---|
| Retrieved | Yes |
| Resource | https://api.reputemap.com/mcp |
| Authorisation server | https://api.reputemap.com |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://api.reputemap.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://api.reputemap.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 302 | https://api.reputemap.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 →
draft_reply Draft reply variants ~107
Generate 2-3 reply drafts for one review using ReputeMap's tuned generator (the same one the app uses, with the business's saved voice and sign-off), and save the draft so it appears in the app's editor. NEVER publishes anything - drafts only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| instructions | string | – | optional one-off guidance for this draft, e.g. 'mention the new units' or 'keep it under 40 words' |
| review_id | string | yes | UUID from list_reviews |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_review_stats Get review stats ~69
Review stats per location and org totals: review counts, average rating, 1-5 star breakdown, unanswered count, and activity in the trailing window (default 30 days).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | integer | – | – |
| location_id | string | – | UUID from list_locations; omit for all locations |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_usage Get API usage ~26
Current month's API credit usage for this org (shared between the REST API and MCP tools).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_locations List locations ~28
List every business location this ReputeMap org manages, with ids to use in the other tools.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_reviews List reviews ~177
List Google reviews for the org (newest first) with the published reply text inlined. Filter by location, star-rating range, replied/unreplied, or a trailing day window. Google moderates owner replies: reply_state is approved, pending (Google is checking it) or rejected (not shown on Google - has_reply is false and reply_policy_violation says why; write a new reply).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| location_id | string | – | UUID from list_locations; omit for all locations |
| offset | integer | – | – |
| rating_max | integer | – | – |
| rating_min | integer | – | – |
| since_days | integer | – | only reviews from the last N days |
| unanswered_only | boolean | – | true = only reviews without an owner reply on Google (a reply Google rejected counts as none) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
publish_reply Publish reply to Google ~167
PUBLISH a reply to this review's public Google profile. This is a public, customer-visible action - call it ONLY when the user has explicitly approved this exact text (Google's policy: a person approves every reply; one call per approved reply, never in bulk). If Google refuses the request, the text is preserved in ReputeMap with a manual fallback (status 'manual_required') - words are never lost. Google also moderates replies: google_state 'pending' = it is checking the reply before showing it; status 'rejected_by_google' = it will not show it (policy_violation and detail say why) - write a different reply.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| review_id | string | yes | UUID from list_reviews |
| text | string | yes | the exact reply text the user approved |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
send_review_request Send review request email ~132
Send ONE review-request email to a real customer, through ReputeMap's campaign engine (respects unsubscribes and the suppression list). This emails a real person - only use it when the user explicitly asks to request a review. Returns status 'sent', 'skipped' (opted out or suppressed), 'already_requested' (this location already asked this address - no second email is sent and no credit is spent) or 'failed'.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| string | yes | customer email address | |
| location_id | string | yes | UUID from list_locations |
| name | string | – | customer name (optional) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the ReputeMap MCP server?
ReputeMap is a hosted endpoint at https://api.reputemap.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 · api.reputemap.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-reputemap-reputemap 'https://api.reputemap.com/mcp'
What is the ReputeMap MCP server?
ReputeMap is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.reputemap/reputemap. Read Google reviews and stats, draft AI replies, publish the ones you approve, request reviews. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://api.reputemap.com/mcp).
Is the ReputeMap MCP server safe to use?
ReputeMap scores 92 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 ReputeMap MCP server expose?
ReputeMap exposes 7 tools: list_locations, list_reviews, get_review_stats, send_review_request, draft_reply, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 706 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ReputeMap MCP server require authentication?
Yes. ReputeMap asked us for credentials when we connected, so you will need to authorise it in your MCP client before it can do anything.
Is the ReputeMap MCP server still maintained?
ReputeMap 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.