Skip to main content
Glama

web-data-toolkit

by io.github.leekung125
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Google Trends interest over time, interest by region and related queries.

google_trends

For up to five keywords: relative search interest over a timeframe, interest broken down by region, and the top and rising related queries. No browser, straight from the Trends endpoints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geoNoCountry or region code such as US or GB. Empty means worldwide.
rawNoReturn every field as JSON instead of a compact summary. Default false.
keywordYesSearch term. Comma-separate up to 5 to compare.
relatedNoInclude top and rising related queries. Default true.
byRegionNoInclude the interest-by-region breakdown. Default true.
timeframeNoAny Trends range, e.g. now 7-d, today 3-m, today 5-y. Default today 12-m.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / raw
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return every field as JSON instead of a compact summary. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / raw
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Return every field as JSON instead of a compact summary. Default false.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context beyond the schema: 'No browser, straight from the Trends endpoints' signals an API-backed path with no browser automation, and the five-keyword limit is behaviorally relevant. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'relative' interest, leaving several behavioral aspects implicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the three core outputs and the keyword limit; the second adds a distinguishing implementation trait. Every clause earns its place.

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-oriented tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return categories and the key constraint (up to five keywords). It does not explain the response shape or potential error cases, but given the simple domain and the schema's high coverage, the remaining gaps are minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mapping its output list to the parameters (region breakdown, related queries), and it states the five-keyword limit that mirrors the keyword parameter. It does not add format details for geo or timeframe beyond the schema.

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 explicitly enumerates the tool's three output types — relative search interest over time, interest by region, and related queries — tied to a precise resource (Google Trends). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which concern app reviews and YouTube transcripts, and the 'For up to five keywords' scope sharpens the purpose further.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case: when Google Trends data for up to five keywords is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, but because all siblings are from different domains, the lack of named exclusions is not a major gap. It does not state any constraints like minimum keywords or when to use related versus byRegion toggles.

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

All web-data-toolkit 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