Fetch GOAT's current trending search terms in ranking order and return each as free text ready for the search query parameter.
Get GOAT trending searches. Returns the search terms GOAT is currently surfacing as popular, in GOAT's own ranking order -- the same list its own search box shows. Each term is free text ready to pass to GET /goat/search's query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the terms are in GOAT's own ranking order, they mirror what the search box shows, and each term is free text. It omits permission/auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior, but for a simple read-only trending list this is largely 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?
Two lean sentences that front-load the purpose and then add the crucial detail about ranking order and downstream use. Zero waste and easy to scan.
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 is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description covers what is returned, how it is ordered, and how to use the results. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds that returned terms are free text suitable for the goat_search query parameter, which clarifies how to use the output even though there are no input parameters to explain.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get GOAT trending searches') and explains the returned content ('search terms GOAT is currently surfacing as popular'). It clearly distinguishes this from goat_search and goat_suggest by positioning it as a discovery source rather than a search endpoint.
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?
It gives clear context for downstream use by stating each term is 'ready to pass to GET /goat/search's query parameter,' which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a specific alternative among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.