io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp
REMOTE · REVIEW-MCP-PRODUCTION.UP.RAILWAY.APP · SCANNED SEP 20
Multi-model code review: a panel of models + detectors return a pass/fail verdict. Paid via x402.
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 Security57
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 1 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability71
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 402 tokens (~402/item across 1 items; 1 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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 1 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 io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp server?
io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp is a hosted endpoint at https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/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 · review-mcp-production.up.railway.app
claude mcp add --transport http hectorguerilla-review-mcp 'https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"hectorguerilla-review-mcp": {
"url": "https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"hectorguerilla-review-mcp": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.hectorguerilla-review-mcp] url = "https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"hectorguerilla-review-mcp": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add hectorguerilla-review-mcp --url 'https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
hectorguerilla-review-mcp:
url: "https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"hectorguerilla-review-mcp": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add hectorguerilla-review-mcp -t streamable-http -u 'https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"hectorguerilla-review-mcp": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} 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.
- 26 Aug 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 24 Aug 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.
- 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
- 31 Jul 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
- 27 Jul 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
- 26 Jul 26 0
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 20 Sept 2026 · Probed https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=*.up.railway.app | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 29 Jul 2026 | 27 Oct 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6da79bb561da3efeb0e751ca21abd3999fe |
| SANs: *.up.railway.app, up.railway.app | ||||||
| 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 insecure
Validation of review-mcp-production.up.railway.app. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| app. | present | 23684 | 8 | Verified |
| railway.app. | absent | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/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 →
review_code ~402
Adversarial multi-model code review. Submit a diff, a module, or a spec+implementation and get back a structured pass/fail verdict with each issue's type, severity, location, explanation, and suggested fix. Why call this instead of reviewing your own output: a single model shares its blind spots with itself. This routes your code through a panel of *different* models plus a set of deterministic detectors, catching what self-review misses — path/contract violations, module incoherence (dangling imports, broken cross-references), syntax and call-arity regressions in a diff's post-image, and 'prose instead of tool calls' (output that describes an action rather than emitting it). The panel adds semantic judgment on top and never overrides a deterministic finding. Call it before shipping or merging, as a second opinion on a risky change, or as a gate in an autonomous build loop. Choose depth='fast' (one model, low latency) or 'deep' (full panel, higher recall). Deep review audits files of any size in milestone chunks so every panel model contributes; the price (shown in the 402) and the payment window scale with file size. Per-call limit ~1,600 lines — larger inputs return 413, so split by file/module and call once per file. Paid per call via x402 (USDC on Base); the price is announced in the 402 response before any charge.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | optional spec/intent, related interfaces, constraints, or what the change should do. |
| depth | string | – | "fast" = single-model, low latency; "deep" = full panel, higher recall (default "deep"). |
| language | string | yes | primary language of the payload (e.g. "typescript", "python"). |
| payload | string | yes | a unified diff, a complete module/file, or a spec plus its implementation (include enough context lines for diffs). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp server?
io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp. Multi-model code review: a panel of models + detectors return a pass/fail verdict. Paid via x402. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp).
Is the io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp server safe to use?
io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp scores 78 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 io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp server expose?
io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp exposes 1 tool: review_code. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 402 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp server require authentication?
No. We connected to io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp server still maintained?
io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 20 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.