Should my agent depend on the MCP server dev.reapx/app-store-reviews?

Verdict: warn — auth-walled — usable, but look before you lean on it As of 2026-08-15T11:28:18Z: a dated observation with receipts, not a warranty.

reapx App Store reviews - ratings and review history

dev.reapx/app-store-reviews

Scrape App Store reviews and rating history by app, country, rating or date. Pay per row.

— the operator's own registry description reported

Publisher dev.reapx · first seen 2026-08-12 · endpoint https://mcp.apify.com/?actors=reapx/app-store-reviews-scraper

warn

verdict

auth-walled

cluster

auth_required

answers

—

tools served

Dependency rating derived

warn
warn — behind a login · action ○ · V n/a

warn — because behind a login ●, no confirmed drift in 2 probes ●; not yet checked: harness, truth (0 runs)

Cluster auth-walled · distinctiveness —. Every figure is a percentile or class within the 11,094-server census — see the whole spectrum.

Does it answer? Q1 · observed

answersauth_legible

latency18 ms

protocolunknown

authauth_legible

Can it be used? Q4 · observed

capabilities0

Did it hold when checked? Q3–Q4 · derived

identityfarm_member

servers on its host65

verifiabilityunassessed

duplicate inventoryno

drift events0

answers trueno primary

🔏 Signed receipt rr_d97aa9d31c487609da2a1c83 · ed25519 · key rs-rcpt-2026-08 — this rating is tamper-evident; an agent gets the full signature from check_server and can verify it against the published key.

Q1Does it answer?behind a login — 2 probes ●evidence ↓

Q2What is it?action ○ evidence ↓

Q3Can it be checked?V n/a for this kind ◐evidence ↓

Q4Did it hold?truth not yet run · no drift ●evidence ↓

Q5What company does it keep?auth-walled · 65 on its host (context, not verdict) ◐evidence ↓

● observed · ◐ derived · ○ reported — the verdict synthesizes Q1–Q4; Q5 is context. Methodology →

History observed

Every probe we made, oldest → newest (2 shown, 2026-08-12 → 2026-08-14). Green answered · amber answered-but-walled · red no useful answer. A gap in our cadence is a gap in coverage, not evidence about the server.

changelog (1 events)

date	type	what changed
2026-08-12	outcome	first probe: auth_required

What kind of tools these are derived

Verification only means something relative to a tool's NATURE — an email-sender has no "true answer", a generator has no answer key. Classification evidence: classified from the operator's own registry description — REPORTED, not observed (tools were not visible to the probe). What checking applies to each kind (the full methodology →):

nature	tools	meaning	what checking applies
action	1	changes the world	no true answer exists; we check the CONTRACT (destructive/read-only/idempotent declarations, error legibility) and never fire real actions

Tools last seen observed

no tool inventory served

Truth checks observed

Not in the Tier-2 trade lane, or not yet checked. Tier-2 re-derives a server's answers against published primary sources — see truth checks.

Drift observed

No confirmed drift on record. Baseline set 2026-08-14; changes appear here after human review.

raw probe records

probed (UTC)	outcome	http	ms	protocol
2026-08-14T19:58:45Z	auth_required	401	18
2026-08-12T05:33:58Z	auth_required	401	17

Watch or embed this verdict

Operators: put the live verdict in your README — it updates with every census, links back here, and is a dated observation, never a warranty:

[![Robin Saige verdict](https://robinsaige.com/badge/dev.reapx/app-store-reviews.svg)](https://robinsaige.com/s/dev.reapx/app-store-reviews)

Depend on it? Subscribe to its change feed — outcome changes and confirmed drift, no account needed. Building on it? The full dossier as JSON — verdict, rating, truth checks, history — stable enough to gate CI on.

← overview