io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp
REMOTE · REVIEW-MCP-PRODUCTION.UP.RAILWAY.APP
Multi-model code review: a panel of models + detectors return a pass/fail verdict. Paid via x402.
Available components
Last scanned (4 hours ago)
Scores higher than 76% of remote servers
Unreachable for 2 days in a row. Last reached 3 Nov 2026.
Category Testing and QA
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 Security11
- TLS not yet verified: we couldn't open a connection to check the certificate. View diagnostics → Unverified
- Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS not yet verified: we couldn't read the response headers to check for it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but we couldn't connect to verify it. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm.
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.
- 4 Nov 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → unreachable ▼ security
- HSTS header: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- TLS certificate: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- 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
- 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
- 25 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 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
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://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp
TLS unreached
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 Inconclusive
We could not reach the endpoint well enough to judge its authorisation posture.
| Result | Inconclusive |
|---|
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 | Unreachable | ||
| http (plaintext) | http://review-mcp-production.up.railway.app/mcp | HTTPS enforced |
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.
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'
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?
Its publisher declares no required credentials for io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp. We have not been able to confirm that against the live endpoint, and a server can require authorisation without declaring it here.
Is the io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp server still maintained?
io.github.HectorGuerilla/review-mcp is still listed in the MCP registry, though our most recent checks did not reach this channel. We last reached this channel on 3 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.