Google Trends interest over time for 1-5 keywords. Compare search interest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country (default: US) | |
| keywords | No | List of 1-5 keywords to compare | |
| timeframe | No | Timeframe: 'today 3-m', 'today 12-m', 'today 5-y' (default: today 3-m) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the data source (Google Trends) and the keyword limit, but does not explain the output format, time series characteristics, normalization, or any other behaviors. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns data.
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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and wastes no words. It is concise and well-structured, making it easy to parse.
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 tool has low-to-medium complexity with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description is sufficient to invoke the tool, but it does not clarify the return structure or any non-obvious behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail on expected output or limitations would improve completeness.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds '1-5 keywords' which reinforces the schema but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states for each parameter. No extra parametric nuance is given.
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 action (Google Trends interest over time) and the resource (1-5 keywords), and adds 'Compare search interest' which conveys the comparison purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trending_topics or compare_coverage, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: 'for 1-5 keywords' suggests when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, nor any mention of exclusions or alternatives. This meets the 'implied usage' level but not clear context without exclusions.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but breaking_now overlaps with top_news and trending_topics, and topic_deep_dive partially overlaps with search_news and trend_over_time. Descriptions generally clarify the differences, making confusion unlikely but possible.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (search_news, compare_coverage), some are noun phrases (top_news, related_queries), and some are less conventional (breaking_now, topic_deep_dive). This makes the naming somewhat inconsistent but still readable.
The server has 9 tools, which is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a specific news/trend analysis need without unnecessary bloat, making the set well-scoped.
The tool set covers news search, top headlines, breaking news, trend analysis, related queries, and coverage comparison. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct article content retrieval or source management, but the available tools handle the core domain effectively.