What is trending right now on Google in a country.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "trending_topics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country code e.g. US, DE, GB, JP (default: US) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query but does not disclose time-window semantics, regional variations, rate limits, or response structure. The single sentence adds little beyond the basic purpose.
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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is maximally concise for the information it conveys.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is serviceable but incomplete: it does not describe what the response contains (e.g., a list of topics, rankings, metadata), and with no annotations there is no safety or behavioral context. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 schema covers the single 'country' parameter fully with examples and a default, so the parameter meaning is already clear. The description adds only the phrase 'in a country,' which does not provide meaningful additional semantics beyond the 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 resource: trending topics on Google for a country. It lacks an imperative verb like 'Get' or 'List' but the intent is obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like breaking_now or top_news, but the Google Trends scope differentiates it enough.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as breaking_now, top_news, or trend_over_time. The description only defines what it does, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.