Social Trends Intelligence MCP
Server Details
Trending topics, cross-platform sentiment, viral content, community pulse & brand mentions.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of social trends: brand mentions, community pulse, daily summary, info, topic sentiment, trending topics, and viral content. No two tools serve the same purpose, making differentiation clear.
All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive noun phrases (e.g., brand_mentions, community_pulse). While not following a strict verb_noun pattern, the naming is consistent and readable.
With 7 tools, the server covers the core aspects of social trends intelligence without being excessive or insufficient. Each tool has a clear role, and the count is well-scoped for its domain.
The tool set covers brand tracking, sentiment, trending, viral content, and a daily brief. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical trend query or search), but the core workflow is fully supported.
Available Tools
7 toolsbrand_mentionsAInspect
Track brand mentions across Reddit and Hacker News with sentiment + context — who's talking about a brand or product, where, how they feel, and the threads driving it. Premium.
PAID: $0.02 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | Yes | the brand/product/company name to track. | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| days_back | No | lookback window in days (default ~7). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It transparently discloses the premium nature, daily free allowance, cost per query, and the retry mechanism involving Solana transaction. It does not cover rate limits or data freshness but addresses key behavioral aspects for proper invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a front-loaded core purpose in the first sentence and a second paragraph for payment mechanics. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, cost, error handling, and parameter usage sufficiently. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema-defined parameter descriptions. The payment details are about usage context, not parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tracks brand mentions across Reddit and Hacker News with sentiment and context, specifying the verb 'track', the resource 'brand mentions', and the scope. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on brand-specific monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes payment details and retry flow on 402, which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the listed sibling tools (community_pulse, daily_brief, etc.), leaving some ambiguity about selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
community_pulseAInspect
Check the pulse of a community on Reddit or Hacker News — its hot topics, aggregate sentiment, and activity level (high/moderate/low by total engagement). Point it at a subreddit, a Hacker News topic, or both.
PAID: $0.01 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| hn_topic | No | a keyword to pulse on Hacker News. | |
| subreddit | No | a subreddit name, e.g. "technology" (no r/ needed). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses payment ($0.01 per query after free allowance), authorization bypass (Bearer fnet_ key), and error handling (402 retry with payment_tx). It also mentions output fields (hot topics, sentiment, activity level).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is split into two clear paragraphs: purpose first, then payment/retry details. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the payment section could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core functionality, payment model, auth bypass, and retry mechanism. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. All essential usage context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context: agent_id scopes free-tier counter, payment_tx is for 402 retries. It clarifies that subreddit needs no 'r/' prefix and hn_topic is a keyword.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the pulse of a community on Reddit or Hacker News, covering hot topics, sentiment, and activity level. It is distinct from sibling tools like topic_sentiment or trending_topics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells how to use the tool: point it at a subreddit, HN topic, or both. It also explains payment and retry logic. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
daily_briefAInspect
Get the curated daily social-trends brief from Reddit, Hacker News, and Google Trends — the day's most significant signals in one package: top trending topics, fastest-moving viral content, sentiment shifts by platform, and the most-active communities. Each brief carries a MINT provenance attestation so a buyer can verify it was produced by this server, unaltered.
PAID: $5 USDC per brief. Defaults to today (UTC); a brief expires at the next midnight UTC. On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | brief date YYYY-MM-DD (default today, UTC). | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: paid ($5 USDC per brief), expires at midnight UTC, requires payment or auth token (Bearer fnet_ key), and includes MINT provenance attestation. Since annotations are absent, the description fully covers behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with a clear first sentence for purpose, followed by payment details and re-call workflow. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (payment, expiry, provenance) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the workflow and constraints adequately, though the role of agent_id could be elaborated slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but description adds value: explains date defaults to today UTC, agent_id scopes free-tier counter, and payment_tx is for re-call after 402. All parameters are clearly contextualized beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies it retrieves a curated daily social-trends brief from Reddit, Hacker News, and Google Trends, listing specific content like top topics, viral content, sentiment shifts, and active communities. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single aggregated brief.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on payment ($5 USDC), default date, expiry, and re-call procedure on 402, plus an auth bypass option. However, it does not compare this tool to siblings like brand_mentions or trending_topics, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mint_infoAInspect
Get FoundryNet Data Network info + MINT Protocol attestation details. FREE.
Returns how to attest your agent's social-trends analysis with MINT Protocol for verifiable on-chain proof, the MINT MCP endpoint, and the sister data servers (gov-contracts, brand-intel, patent-intel, financial-signals, weather-intel, cyber-intel, compliance, academic-intel, fact-check, oss-intel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes return content but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects. Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and cost, second lists return items. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, the description fully covers the tool's function and output. No gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, which compensates for lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool provides FoundryNet Data Network info and MINT Protocol attestation details. The description distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools by focusing on network-level information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for obtaining network info and MINT attestation details. The term 'FREE' and the listed outputs provide clear context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
topic_sentimentAInspect
Analyze cross-platform sentiment for a topic on Reddit and Hacker News — an overall score + per-platform breakdown, volume trend (rising/steady/new), and key discussion threads. Deterministic lexicon heuristic (no LLM).
PAID: $0.01 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | the topic/keyword to gauge sentiment for. | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses deterministic lexicon heuristic (no LLM), cross-platform analysis, volume trend classification, and the payment model including 402 error recovery. This provides agents with accurate behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured in two clear paragraphs. The first covers functionality, the second covers payment. It is mostly concise, though the payment section could be slightly tightened. No wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (payment, 402 handling, cross-platform, deterministic), the description covers all critical aspects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Payment and error handling are explicitly detailed, making it complete for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It explains the payment flow but does not enrich parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Analyze', the resource 'sentiment for a topic', and the specific platforms 'Reddit and Hacker News'. It enumerates the outputs (overall score, per-platform breakdown, volume trend, key threads), distinguishing it from sibling tools like brand_mentions or community_pulse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit payment handling instructions (daily free allowance, cost per query, handling 402 errors with payment_tx and Authorization header). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the purpose clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trending_topicsAInspect
Track trending topics across social media with velocity scores — what's gaining attention right now on Reddit, Hacker News, and Google Trends.
PAID: $0.01 USDC per query after a daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| category | No | optional keyword filter for topics. | |
| platform | No | reddit | hackernews | all (default all). | all |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost, free tier limits, payment retry flow, and alternative auth. No side effects are mentioned, but the tool is likely read-only; the description adequately covers behavioral aspects for a paid API tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured paragraphs: first states purpose, second covers payment. Every sentence adds relevant information, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, platforms, payment, error handling, and auth. Complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: explains agent_id scopes free counter, platform values are clarified, and payment_tx context is provided for retry flow. This adds value beyond what the schema alone offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tracks trending topics across social media with velocity scores, listing specific platforms (Reddit, Hacker News, Google Trends). This verb+resource+scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like brand_mentions or community_pulse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit payment instructions, free tier allowance, error handling on 402, and alternative auth method. However, it does not compare against sibling tools to guide when to use this one versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
viral_contentAInspect
Track viral content gaining traction fastest on Reddit and Hacker News — posts and stories ranked by velocity (engagement per hour since posting), the "what's about to blow up?" tool.
PAID: $0.01 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| min_score | No | minimum upvotes/points to include. | |
| hours_back | No | only content posted in the last N hours. | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses payment model, free tier limits, and 402 error handling. This adds significant behavioral context. However, lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or output format beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two focused paragraphs. First sentence clearly states purpose; second covers payment. No fluff or redundant information. Front-loaded with core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the function, required parameters, and payment handling. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on non-402 errors or how to interpret results beyond 'ranked by velocity'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little new parameter information, but does contextualize 'payment_tx' in the payment flow. No additional semantics for 'agent_id', 'min_score', or 'hours_back' beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tracks viral content from Reddit and Hacker News ranked by velocity, distinguishing it from siblings. The verb 'track' and resource 'viral content' are specific and the 'what's about to blow up?' tagline reinforces use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for discovering fast-rising content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'trending_topics' or 'community_pulse'. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!