List countries and region codes you can pass as location on google-search.keyword_traffic_insights and google-search.url_traffic_insights.
Returns an array of entries with country_name and country_code (for example US, GB). No request parameters.
Cost = 5 tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locations | No | Supported countries for the location request parameter. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('array of entries with country_name and country_code'), gives concrete examples (US, GB), and notes the cost. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple no-parameter list tool this is sufficient.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and cost. Every sentence is informative and no words are wasted.
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 no parameters, an output schema (covering return values), and the description explains purpose, target consumers, and expected output format, it is fully complete for its simple reference-list nature.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that there are no request parameters and explains the conceptual meaning of the data (usable as location values), adding value beyond the empty 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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('countries and region codes'), and explicitly ties the tool to two consuming functions (google-search.keyword_traffic_insights and google-search.url_traffic_insights). This distinguishes it from other list-type tools like google-search.languages or google-trends.regions.
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 explicitly names the two tools that accept the returned location codes, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose, further clarified by group prefixes and clear descriptions. Within each group, tools perform different operations (e.g., domains.lookup vs. domains.whois vs. domains.rdap) with no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent group.tool_name pattern using snake_case. The naming is predictable and uniformly applied across all groups.
78 tools is high, but the server aggregates multiple distinct API domains (11 groups). Each group has a reasonable number of tools, typically under 10, with TikTok having 17. The count reflects breadth, not bloat.
Each domain's tool set covers the primary expected operations (e.g., search, details, reviews, metrics, user info). There are no obvious gaps for read-only analytical use; features like posting are likely out of scope.
