Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

gdelt_timeline

Analyze how a GDELT query's global news coverage trends over time. Get volume or tone metrics with optional filters.

Instructions

Coverage volume or tone over time for a GDELT query. Return how a query's global news coverage has trended over.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd of an absolute time window. Same formats as from.
fromNoStart of an absolute time window. Accepts YYYY-MM-DD, RFC3339, or GDELT's raw YYYYMMDDHHMMSS. Cannot be combined with timespan.
queryYesGDELT query string. Same syntax as gdelt-search's query.
domainNoConvenience domain filter, appended to the query as domain:VALUE.
metricNoTimeline metric. lang and country return one series per language/country instead of one aggregate series.
smoothNoMoving-window smoothing applied to the timeline, in steps. 0 disables smoothing.
countryNoConvenience source-country filter, appended to the query as sourcecountry:VALUE.
languageNoConvenience source-language filter, appended to the query as sourcelang:VALUE.
timespanNoRelative time window ending now, e.g. 1h, 2d, 1w, 3m. Cannot be combined with from/to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / metric / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "volume",
+  "volume_raw",
+  "tone",
+  "lang",
+  "country"
+]
  2. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it returns a trend, but does not explain that it produces a series, that lang/country metrics return multiple series, that smoothing affects output, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is brief, but the second sentence is grammatically incomplete ('trended over.'). It is not front-loaded with the most critical information; the core verb 'Coverage volume or tone over time' is present but the structure feels truncated. It is concise but not well-structured, and the incomplete sentence detracts from clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 9 parameters including a metric enum with five options, smoothing, and time-window constraints. The description provides almost no context about how these interact, what the output looks like, or what 'tone' versus 'volume' means in GDELT terms. Without an output schema, the description leaves the agent with insufficient information to call this correctly for varied use cases.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description mentions 'volume or tone' which loosely maps to the metric enum, but adds no additional meaning beyond that. Given the high coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not hinder but does not enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns coverage volume or tone over time for a GDELT query. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic search tools like gdelt_search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like gdelt_tonechart or gdelt_tv_timeline, which also involve temporal trends, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to gdelt_search, gdelt_tonechart, or other timeline tools. The user is left to infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools