Skip to main content
Glama
andrewlwn77

Google Trends MCP Server

by andrewlwn77
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one for trending questions, one for API status, and one for currently trending topics. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent `google_trends_<noun>` pattern, with clear, descriptive names. The verb (get) is implied, and the naming is uniform.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is minimal but reasonable for a focused server. The count covers the core functionalities—trending topics, related questions, and status—without being excessive.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers basic features like trending topics and questions but lacks tools for specific search queries (e.g., interest over time, comparisons). The surface is functional but not comprehensive.

  • Average 3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Merely says 'Check the status', without disclosing what 'status' means (e.g., API availability, latency, error codes) or any side effects. Lacks behavioral details needed for an agent to understand implications.

    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?

    Extremely concise (single sentence) but at the cost of missing critical information. It is front-loaded but too minimal to be effective. Every word earns its place, but the description is underspecified.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Without output schema and with vague description, the agent has no idea what the tool returns. No explanation of return format, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. Inadequate for informed tool selection and invocation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds no meaning to parameters (country, language). It fails to explain why a status check needs location codes or how they affect results, leaving the agent guessing about their role.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    Description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Google Trends API status'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools (google_trends_questions, google_trends_trending) which likely focus on querying data rather than status.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this status check is needed.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. No information about rate limits, data freshness, authentication, or any potential side effects is provided.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with few parameters, though it sacrifices some detail for brevity.

    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?

    Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., list of trending questions). It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format.

    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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (country code and language code). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for well-described parameters.

    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 clearly states 'Get trending questions from Google Trends', indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not fully distinguish from siblings like google_trends_trending, which might also return trending items. A slightly more precise definition would help.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_trends_trending or google_trends_status. There are no context clues for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without details on return format, data volume, authentication needs, or rate limits. 'Get' implies a read operation, but lacks sufficient depth.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. While concise, it could incorporate slight additional context without becoming verbose, hence a slight deduction.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema needed), the description adequately conveys the core function. However, it lacks any mention of return value characteristics (e.g., array of topics), leaving minor gaps.

    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 both 'country' and 'language' parameters with examples. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'currently trending topics from Google Trends'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools 'google_trends_questions' and 'google_trends_status', which serve different purposes.

    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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. An explicit comparison with 'google_trends_questions' or 'google_trends_status' is missing.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

google-trends-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

google-trends-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andrewlwn77/google-trends-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server