Skip to main content
Glama

PrimeReviewsPro Fake Review Checker

Server Details

Detect fake or manipulated product reviews from Amazon, Trustpilot, Google and Etsy.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
check_reviewsCheck product reviews for fakesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Check whether a product's reviews look fake or manipulated. Paste at least 3 reviews (Amazon, Trustpilot, Google or Etsy), each separated by a BLANK LINE. Returns how many reviews read as real / suspicious / fake, an overall fake-percentage, a risk level, the manipulation signals found, and a per-review verdict. Read-only and free, no signup. If the call fails, report that the check could not be completed - do not invent a verdict.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asinNoOptional Amazon ASIN for reference.
reviews_textYesAt least 3 reviews, each separated by a BLANK LINE (double newline).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds 'free, no signup' and an explicit instruction not to invent a verdict on failure. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by input requirements, output summary, and failure handling. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned verdicts and metrics. It also covers input formatting, supported sources, cost/signup expectations, and failure behavior, making the tool fully callable by an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds minor context like supported platforms and reinforces blank-line separation, but it does not significantly expand on the parameter semantics already present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a product's reviews look fake or manipulated'), names the supported sources, and clarifies what the tool returns. It is unambiguous even without sibling tools to distinguish against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear invocation context: at least 3 reviews, supported platforms, blank-line separation, and a fallback instruction if the call fails. There are no sibling tools to contrast with, so explicit when-not-to-use guidance is not required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedcheck_reviews

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Provides cited product-review verdicts synthesised from real user voices across multiple platforms, enabling AI agents to query live opinions with ratings, pros/cons, and confidence tiers.
    -
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Agent-native Amazon review intelligence — fetches verified reviews from 10 marketplaces via real Shulex OpenAPI (not scrapers) and produces copy-ready listing improvements grounded in actual customer language. Backed by a 2B-review historical dataset that Helium 10 / Jungle Scout can't replicate. Works in any MCP client (Claude Code, Claude Desktop, ChatGPT, Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, Cline).
    6
    33
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity between tools. The purpose is singular and clearly defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'check_reviews' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, consistent with best practices. There are no other tools to conflict with.

Tool Count3/5

One tool feels thin for a server, but it is a focused single-purpose utility. It is on the borderline between acceptable and under-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool fully covers the stated purpose of checking reviews for manipulation. Minor gaps include lack of URL-based checking or batch processing, but the core workflow is complete.

Resources