Moonlings — Local Business Intelligence

Start Deep Research Report

start_deep_report

Launch a full overnight-grade research report on a local business: an autonomous research crew maps the competitive landscape, reads the business's and rivals' web presence, and delivers a long-form graded report with structured findings and an action list. ASYNC: this tool returns a slug immediately; the report takes roughly 10-20 minutes. Poll check_report_status, then fetch with get_report_result. Price: $9.99, charged when the report launches; if the report fails, the charge is refunded automatically. Each call starts a NEW report — do not retry a call that already returned a slug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brief`	No	Optional research focus, e.g. "we're losing weekend foot traffic — figure out why"
`website`	No	Optional: the business website, read to ground services and positioning
`location`	Yes	City and state/region, e.g. "Cincinnati, OH"
`businessName`	Yes	The local business to research
`businessType`	Yes	Category anchor, e.g. "dentist" — competitor discovery is category-anchored

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses async timing (10-20 minutes), pricing ($9.99 charged on launch, refund on failure), and that each call starts a new report. Annotations are minimal, but description provides rich behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single paragraph with clear, front-loaded information. Every sentence adds value (async behavior, pricing, usage warnings). No redundancy.

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?

Given the async nature and sibling tools, the description fully explains the workflow, pricing, error handling, and uniqueness. No gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions. Description adds context: brief optional research focus, website optional but useful, businessType anchors competitor discovery. Some added value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it launches a full overnight-grade research report on a local business, mapping competitive landscape and web presence, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_report_status and get_report_result.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes the async flow (returns slug, poll with check_report_status, fetch with get_report_result), warns not to retry a call that returned a slug, and notes pricing and failure refund policy.

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

All Moonlings — Local Business Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct function: fact verification, visibility check, review gap analysis, competitor scan, and deep research. The report-related tools (start, poll, fetch) are clearly separated by their roles. No two tools are easily confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case consistently. Most start with verbs like 'check_', 'get_', 'run_', or 'start_', though 'ping' and 'review_gap' deviate slightly. The pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools cover the domain of local business intelligence well: fact-checking, visibility, review comparison, competitor scan, and deep research. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core intelligence needs: fact verification, review comparisons, visibility checks, competitor scans, and deep research reports. Minor gaps like a tool to list businesses or manage multiple entities exist, but for single-business analysis it's nearly complete.

Resources

Need Help?