Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MentionFox

by io.github.OsakaSaul
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Short brief on one subject

get_snapshot

A short brief on one subject: for a company, its red flags with sources (lawsuits, bankruptcy and SEC filings, executive departures, layoffs), who runs it and who funded it; for a person or a publication, who they are and what the record shows. It is written from what is on the record and returned as text plus a link to a formatted page you can share. Say who the subject is and what kind of subject they are, because the brief is written for the kind: what matters about a founder is not what matters about a doctor. What comes back is about a page: who they are, what the record shows, what stands out, and what to be careful of. Ask for the same subject twice and the second time is free — you are handed the brief already written, unchanged, rather than paying for it again. Nothing is charged when there is no such subject or too little on the record to say anything useful. Subject types you can ask for, and what each costs: company (5 credits), counterparty (5 credits), crypto_coin (5 credits), donor (5 credits), executive (5 credits), expert_witness (5 credits), founder (5 credits), insurance_underwriting (5 credits), investor (5 credits), journalism_person (5 credits), journalist (5 credits), litigation_funder (5 credits), nft_collection (5 credits), pe_firm (5 credits), penny_stock (5 credits), physician (10 credits), pre_ipo_secondary (5 credits), publication (5 credits), source (5 credits), spac_sponsor (5 credits), specific_fund (5 credits), vc_firm (5 credits), wealth_advisor (5 credits). Use this when someone says "who is this", "what should I know before I meet them", "quick read on this firm". For the long version, use get_full_report. 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 the domain, when the name on its own could mean several people.
subjectYesWho or what the brief is about — a person's name, a firm, a publication. Add the employer or domain to it if the name alone is common.
new_reportNoSet this only when you want a fresh brief on a subject you already have one for. It writes and charges for a second brief and leaves the earlier one untouched. Leaving it off hands you the brief you already bought, free.
subject_typeYesWhich kind of subject this is. The accepted values are listed in this tool's description, each with its price; 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": "Short brief on one subject",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but say nothing about cost. The description fills that gap with per-subject-type pricing, a free cached repeat, and no charge when the subject is unknown or thin — behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It loses a point because the cost table is buried in prose rather than stated as a rule up front, and the interaction between new_report and billing is only fully clear in the schema.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded, which is good, but the 23-item inline subject-type price list dominates the middle of the description and is delivered as undifferentiated prose. The free-repeat rule is stated twice in near-identical terms, and the pricing URL trails a sentence that has already moved on to the MentionFox check. It is informative but not tightly structured.

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, open-world research tool with four parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs before spending credits: what it returns (text plus a shareable link), cost per subject type, caching behavior, the zero-result policy, and the sibling alternative. An output schema exists, yet the extra return detail is additive rather than redundant.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it justifies subject_type ('what matters about a founder is not what matters about a doctor') and supplies the full accepted-value list with prices, which the schema itself lacks (no enums). It does not add anything for the optional 'company' parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 concrete verb and artifact (a one-page brief on a single subject) and enumerates what the brief covers for each kind of subject: red flags with sources, leadership, funding, record highlights. It also names the sibling it is not — 'For the long version, use get_full_report' — so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('who is this', 'what should I know before I meet them', 'quick read on this firm') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it (get_full_report for the long version). It also states the free-repeat and no-charge-on-miss rules, which affect whether the agent should call at all.

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