Explore Google Trends keyword analytics: interest over time, by region, related queries and topics to inform content and market research.
Google Trends explore data. Returns normalized Google Trends keyword analytics from internal Trends widget requests: interest over time, interest by region, related queries, and related topics when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | Explore request |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / request / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "category": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "geo": {
+ "enum": [
+ "WORLDWIDE",
+ "AF",
+ "AX",
+ "AL",
+ "DZ",
+ "AS",
+ "AD",
+ "AO",
+ "AI",
+ "AQ",
+ "AG",
+ "AR",
+ "AM",
+ "AW",
+ "AU",
+ "AT",
+ "AZ",
+ "BS",
+ "BH",
+ "BD",
+ "BB",
+ "BY",
+ "BE",
+ "BZ",
+ "BJ",
+ "BM",
+ "BT",
+ "BO",
+ "BA",
+ "BW",
+ "BV",
+ "BR",
+ "IO",
+ "VG",
+ "BN",
+ "BG",
+ "BF",
+ "BI",
+ "KH",
+ "CM",
+ "CA",
+ "CV",
+ "BQ",
+ "KY",
+ "CF",
+ "TD",
+ "CL",
+ "CN",
+ "CX",
+ "CC",
+ "CO",
+ "KM",
+ "CG",
+ "CD",
+ "CK",
+ "CR",
+ "CI",
+ "HR",
+ "CU",
+ "CW",
+ "CY",
+ "CZ",
+ "DK",
+ "DJ",
+ "DM",
+ "DO",
+ "EC",
+ "EG",
+ "SV",
+ "GQ",
+ "ER",
+ "EE",
+ "SZ",
+ "ET",
+ "FK",
+ "FO",
+ "FJ",
+ "FI",
+ "FR",
+ "GF",
+ "PF",
+ "TF",
+ "GA",
+ "GM",
+ "GE",
+ "DE",
+ "GH",
+ "GI",
+ "GR",
+ "GL",
+ "GD",
+ "GP",
+ "GU",
+ "GT",
+ "GG",
+ "GN",
+ "GW",
+ "GY",
+ "HT",
+ "HM",
+ "HN",
+ "HK",
+ "HU",
+ "IS",
+ "IN",
+ "ID",
+ "IR",
+ "IQ",
+ "IE",
+ "IM",
+ "IL",
+ "IT",
+ "JM",
+ "JP",
+ "JE",
+ "JO",
+ "KZ",
+ "KE",
+ "KI",
+ "XK",
+ "KW",
+ "KG",
+ "LA",
+ "LV",
+ "LB",
+ "LS",
+ "LR",
+ "LY",
+ "LI",
+ "LT",
+ "LU",
+ "MO",
+ "MG",
+ "MW",
+ "MY",
+ "MV",
+ "ML",
+ "MT",
+ "MH",
+ "MQ",
+ "MR",
+ "MU",
+ "YT",
+ "MX",
+ "FM",
+ "MD",
+ "MC",
+ "MN",
+ "ME",
+ "MS",
+ "MA",
+ "MZ",
+ "MM",
+ "NA",
+ "NR",
+ "NP",
+ "NL",
+ "NC",
+ "NZ",
+ "NI",
+ "NE",
+ "NG",
+ "NU",
+ "NF",
+ "KP",
+ "MK",
+ "MP",
+ "NO",
+ "OM",
+ "PK",
+ "PW",
+ "PS",
+ "PA",
+ "PG",
+ "PY",
+ "PE",
+ "PH",
+ "PN",
+ "PL",
+ "PT",
+ "PR",
+ "QA",
+ "RE",
+ "RO",
+ "RU",
+ "RW",
+ "WS",
+ "SM",
+ "ST",
+ "SA",
+ "SN",
+ "RS",
+ "SC",
+ "SL",
+ "SG",
+ "SX",
+ "SK",
+ "SI",
+ "SB",
+ "SO",
+ "ZA",
+ "GS",
+ "KR",
+ "SS",
+ "ES",
+ "LK",
+ "BL",
+ "SH",
+ "KN",
+ "LC",
+ "MF",
+ "PM",
+ "VC",
+ "SD",
+ "SR",
+ "SJ",
+ "SE",
+ "CH",
+ "SY",
+ "TW",
+ "TJ",
+ "TZ",
+ "TH",
+ "TL",
+ "TG",
+ "TK",
+ "TO",
+ "TT",
+ "TN",
+ "TR",
+ "TM",
+ "TC",
+ "TV",
+ "UM",
+ "VI",
+ "UG",
+ "UA",
+ "AE",
+ "GB",
+ "US",
+ "UY",
+ "UZ",
+ "VU",
+ "VA",
+ "VE",
+ "VN",
+ "WF",
+ "EH",
+ "YE",
+ "ZM",
+ "ZW"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "hl": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "keywords": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "property": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "time_range": {
+ "enum": [
+ "now 1-H",
+ "now 4-H",
+ "now 1-d",
+ "now 7-d",
+ "today 1-m",
+ "today 3-m",
+ "today 12-m",
+ "today 5-y",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "enum": [
+ "web",
+ "image",
+ "news",
+ "youtube",
+ "shopping"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tz": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the data is 'normalized', comes from 'internal Trends widget requests', and is returned 'when available' – useful context about data variability. However, it does not mention potential limitations, error behavior, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving a moderate gap.
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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a compact enumeration of the returned data types. Every sentence earns its place.
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 a nested request object with eight fields, no output schema, and no guidance on how to construct a valid request. The description explains what is returned but not what inputs are required or how they map to the output. Given the complexity of the schema and the existence of more specific siblings, this is an incomplete definition for an agent to call correctly.
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% for the top-level 'request' parameter, which has a minimal description ('Explore request'). The nested fields (hl, tz, geo, keywords, time_range, etc.) lack descriptions, but their names and enums are largely self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Returns normalized Google Trends keyword analytics') and lists the exact data components returned: interest over time, interest by region, related queries, and related topics. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools like google_trends_explore_interest_over_time or google_trends_explore_related_topics.
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 provided on when to use this aggregate explore tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., google_trends_explore_interest_by_region, google_trends_explore_top_queries). The description does not mention when this is preferable, when it is not, or any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.