Fetch related topics from Google Trends Explore for a given term, filter, and region. Outputs an empty array if none exist.
Google Trends related topics. Returns only the related topics widget from the Google Trends Explore widget flow. Returns an empty related_topics array when Google returns no topic rows for the requested term/filter combination.
| 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 burden. It usefully discloses the narrow scope ('only the related topics widget') and the empty-related_topics edge case, but it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or the structure of the returned topic rows.
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 compact and front-loaded with the key scoping fact. The opening phrase 'Google Trends related topics' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but it does not introduce meaningful bloat and the edge-case 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 description explains the primary output and the no-results case, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not describe the expected structure of related topic entries, valid request field combinations, or any example request, so an agent still has to rely heavily on schema field names and enums.
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 coverage is effectively high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the phrase 'term/filter combination,' which vaguely maps to keywords/time_range/geo but does not meaningfully explain the nested request parameters beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 it returns the related topics widget from the Google Trends Explore flow, using a specific verb and resource. The word 'only' distinguishes it from the sibling Google Trends widgets such as interest over time, rising queries, and top queries, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 is implied: an agent would use this when it needs just the related topics widget, not other Explore widgets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tool names, so the routing decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.