Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MentionFox

by io.github.OsakaSaul
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Full written report on one subject

get_full_report

The long version: a full written report on one subject, section by section, ending with the sources it drew on. Where the short brief runs to a page, this runs to several thousand words. It is fixed at the moment it is made — it records what the record said on that day and is never edited afterwards, so what you show someone in six months is what you bought. If you want a fresher picture, you ask for a new one: it is written and paid for separately and the old one stays exactly as it was. Asking again for a subject you already have a report on hands you the one you already bought, free. Writing takes a few minutes; if it is still being written when the call comes back you get a link and can return to it. Costs 50 credits and needs the Pro plan. Subject types you can ask for: accelerator (50 credits), company (50 credits), counterparty (50 credits), crypto_coin (50 credits), donor (50 credits), executive (50 credits), expert_witness (50 credits), founder (50 credits), insurance_underwriting (50 credits), investor (50 credits), journalism_person (50 credits), journalist (50 credits), litigation_funder (50 credits), nft_collection (50 credits), pe_firm (50 credits), penny_stock (50 credits), physician (50 credits), pre_ipo_secondary (50 credits), publication (50 credits), source (50 credits), spac_sponsor (50 credits), specific_fund (50 credits), vc_firm (50 credits), wealth_advisor (50 credits). For a company, put its website in company (for example subject "Flock Safety", company "flocksafety.com") and the report starts on that company straight away; a website on its own as the subject works too. If you give only a name and more than one company goes by it, nothing is charged: you get a short list of the companies it could be, each with its website and a line on what it does, and you call again with the right website in company. Use this when someone says "I need the full write-up", "proper due diligence before we commit", "the long one". If you name a company MentionFox holds a record for, the answer starts with the MentionFox check on it: red flags found, in how many sources, with a link to the full findings. Plans and credits: https://mentionfox.com/pricing

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyNoOptional. The organisation they are with, or its website, when the name on its own could mean several. For a company report, put the company's website here (for example flocksafety.com) so the report runs on exactly that company without a follow-up question.
subjectYesWho or what the report is about — a person's name, a firm, a publication, or a company name or website.
new_reportNoSet this only when you want a NEW report on a subject you already have one for. It writes and charges for a second report; the earlier one is left untouched. Leaving it off returns the report you already bought, free.
subject_typeYesWhich kind of subject this is. The accepted values are listed in this tool's description; they are read from the live price list, so ask for one of those exactly.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoA short note about this answer.
errorNoPresent when the call could not do the work; says why and that nothing was charged where that is so.
reportNoThe written brief or report: text, or sections with their sources.
made_atNoWhen it was written (ISO date and time). It is never edited afterwards.
messageNoA plain note about the answer, for example why candidates were returned instead of a result.
subjectNoWho or what the brief or report is about.
candidatesNoCompanies the name could mean, each with its website and a line on what it does.
public_urlNoA link to the formatted page you can share.
upgrade_urlNoWhere to see plans, when the subject type needs a plan the account does not have.
did_you_meanNoThe closest accepted subject type, when the one given was not accepted.
pricing_noteNoWhat this call cost and what a repeat costs.
subject_typeNoThe kind of subject it was written for.
needs_websiteNoTrue when several companies share the name; call again with the website in company.
still_writingNoTrue when a long report is still being written; come back to public_url.
subject_typesNoThe subject types that can be asked for, when the one given was not one of them.
already_boughtNoTrue when this is one you already had, handed back free.
credits_chargedNoCredits this call took. 0 when nothing was charged.
mentionfox_checkNoPresent when the call named a company MentionFox holds a record for: MentionFox's own check on it (the sentence, red flags and notes with their source links, how many sources) and a link to the full findings.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / mentionfox_check
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present when the call named a company MentionFox holds a record for: MentionFox's own check on it (the sentence, red flags and notes with their source links, how many sources) and a link to the full findings."
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "already_bought": {
+      "description": "True when this is one you already had, handed back free.",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "candidates": {
+      "description": "Companies the name could mean, each with its website and a line on what it does.",
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "credits_charged": {
+      "description": "Credits this call took. 0 when nothing was charged.",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "did_you_mean": {
+      "description": "The closest accepted subject type, when the one given was not accepted.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Present when the call could not do the work; says why and that nothing was charged where that is so.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "made_at": {
+      "description": "When it was written (ISO date and time). It is never edited afterwards.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "A plain note about the answer, for example why candidates were returned instead of a result.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "needs_website": {
+      "description": "True when several companies share the name; call again with the website in company.",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "A short note about this answer.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pricing_note": {
+      "description": "What this call cost and what a repeat costs.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "public_url": {
+      "description": "A link to the formatted page you can share.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "report": {
+      "description": "The written brief or report: text, or sections with their sources."
+    },
+    "still_writing": {
+      "description": "True when a long report is still being written; come back to public_url.",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "subject": {
+      "description": "Who or what the brief or report is about.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "subject_type": {
+      "description": "The kind of subject it was written for.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "subject_types": {
+      "description": "The subject types that can be asked for, when the one given was not one of them.",
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "upgrade_url": {
+      "description": "Where to see plans, when the subject type needs a plan the account does not have.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "Full report on one subject",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / company / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. The organisation they are with, or the domain, when the name on its own could mean several people."New value: +"Optional. The organisation they are with, or its website, when the name on its own could mean several. For a company report, put the company's website here (for example flocksafety.com) so the report runs on exactly that company without a follow-up question."
    • changedInput schema / properties / subject / description
      Previous value: -"Who or what the report is about — a person's name, a firm, a publication."New value: +"Who or what the report is about — a person's name, a firm, a publication, or a company name or website."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the artefact is immutable once written, that a refresh is a separate paid write, that generation takes minutes and may return a link instead of content, that the call costs 50 credits and requires the Pro plan, and that ambiguous subjects are not charged. This is exactly the cost/permission/latency context the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded and the immutability rule leads, but it restates that point twice ('never edited afterwards' / 'the old one stays exactly as it was') and lists the same 50-credit price 24 times in the subject_type roster, which is avoidable padding. The required value list earns its place; the repetition does not.

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?

For a paid, non-idempotent, open-world generation call, the description covers cost, plan gating, latency, caching semantics, immutability, disambiguation, and the full enum of subject types, and an output schema exists to cover return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the 24 accepted subject_type values (the schema defers to the description rather than declaring an enum), explains the company parameter convention with a worked example ('Flock Safety' / 'flocksafety.com'), and clarifies that a bare website works as subject.

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 names a specific verb+resource: a long-form written report on one subject, section by section, ending with sources. It explicitly contrasts itself with 'the short brief' that 'runs to a page' versus several thousand words, so an agent can distinguish this from lighter-weight siblings like get_snapshot or get_dossier.

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 concrete user phrasings that should trigger this tool ('I need the full write-up', 'proper due diligence before we commit', 'the long one') and spells out the re-request rule (cached report returned free unless new_report is set). It also handles the ambiguous-company case with a defined follow-up flow at no charge. It stops short of naming sibling tools as explicit alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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

All MentionFox toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources