Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MentionFox

by io.github.OsakaSaul
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Scan platforms for brand mentions

scan_for_mentions
Read-only

What people said about something in the last day. Name a brand, a product, a topic or a person and this comes back with the posts, comments, articles and videos that mention it — each one with where it was said, a link to it, and whether it read as positive, negative or neither. It also marks the ones that sound like somebody about to buy, so this is the tool for "who is asking for something like ours". Use it for "what are people saying about us today", "did anyone pick up the launch", "anything new on this topic this week". It looks across 55 places by default and you can narrow that. It does not build a picture of a person — for that, ask for a brief. Costs 3 credits for each place it looks, so a default run of five places is about 15. 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
topicYesThe brand, product, topic or person to look for, for example "Notion" or "AI note-taking".
sourcesNoOptional. Only these places, by name (for example ["reddit", "hackernews"]). Left out, the default set is searched.
hours_backNoHow many hours back to look, 1 to 24. Default 24.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNoTrue when the scan ran.
noteNoA note about the scan, for example a place that could not be searched.
errorNoPresent when the call could not do the work; says why and that nothing was charged where that is so.
topicNoWhat was searched for.
messageNoA plain note about the answer, for example why candidates were returned instead of a result.
mentionsNoEach mention: where it was said, a link, the text, the sentiment and whether it sounds like someone about to buy.
pricing_noteNoWhat this call cost and what a repeat costs.
mention_countNoHow many mentions came back.
mentionfox_urlNoThe scan in MentionFox.
credits_chargedNoCredits this call took. 0 when nothing was charged.
sources_scannedNoThe places searched.
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.
credits_charged_totalNoCredits this scan took in total.

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / hours_back / description
      Added value: +"How many hours back to look, 1 to 24. Default 24."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sources / description
      Previous value: -"Optional source filter (default = all 50+)"New value: +"Optional. Only these places, by name (for example [\"reddit\", \"hackernews\"]). Left out, the default set is searched."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Topic, brand, or person to scan for"New value: +"The brand, product, topic or person to look for, for example \"Notion\" or \"AI note-taking\"."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "credits_charged": {
+      "description": "Credits this call took. 0 when nothing was charged.",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "credits_charged_total": {
+      "description": "Credits this scan took in total.",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "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"
+      ]
+    },
+    "mention_count": {
+      "description": "How many mentions came back.",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "mentionfox_url": {
+      "description": "The scan in MentionFox.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "mentions": {
+      "description": "Each mention: where it was said, a link, the text, the sentiment and whether it sounds like someone about to buy.",
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "A plain note about the answer, for example why candidates were returned instead of a result.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "A note about the scan, for example a place that could not be searched.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "True when the scan ran.",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pricing_note": {
+      "description": "What this call cost and what a repeat costs.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sources_scanned": {
+      "description": "The places searched.",
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "topic": {
+      "description": "What was searched for.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "Mentions found",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: a credit cost of 3 per source, the automatic MentionFox record check prepended to results, and the absence of person profiling. The one flaw is an internal inconsistency — 'looks across 55 places by default' versus 'a default run of five places is about 15' — which could mislead an agent about default scope and cost.

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?

The core capability is front-loaded and the example phrasings are useful, but the text is chatty and padded with a pricing URL, credit arithmetic and a restated MentionFox behavior. The contradictory source counts (55 vs five) are wasted-and-confusing content rather than economy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only search tool with a full output schema, the description covers costs, default scope, special-case output (MentionFox check), and an exclusion to a sibling. The remaining gap is the unresolved default-source count, which matters because it drives both result breadth and credit spend.

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 defines topic, sources and hours_back with examples and bounds. The description adds only a vague 'you can narrow that' for sources and never mentions the hours_back parameter or its 1–24 cap, so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly conveys the resource (posts, comments, articles, videos mentioning a named topic) and the added signals (source, link, sentiment, buyer intent). It also separates itself from sibling tools by stating it 'does not build a picture of a person — for that, ask for a brief.' The verb is delivered indirectly through examples rather than a crisp statement, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Concrete trigger phrases are supplied ('what are people saying about us today', 'did anyone pick up the launch', 'anything new on this topic this week'), plus one explicit exclusion pointing to the person-brief tool. It does not name the sibling tools directly (e.g. get_dossier, find_buyers_now), so the routing is clear in intent but not in exact tool identity.

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