trendzeist-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

aeo_opportunities

Find question-shaped content opportunities for 1–5 seed topics by clustering searches, scoring trend and citation evidence, and flagging coverage gaps to prioritize answers.

Instructions

AEO opportunity finder. For 1-5 seeds: question-shaped searches (Trends + a capped Autocomplete pass) clustered by seed and title angle, each scored with the seed's recent trend (direction_now over 12 months, growth_3m), Google News coverage (who to quote / pitch), Wikipedia presence, the site's own coverage and the evidence type that makes the answer citable (score_breakdown explains every point). site_queries = queries the site already ranks for (fill from a Search Console MCP or page titles); clusters then carry coverage covered / partial / gap and exclude_covered drops covered ones. Spam-like rising queries are ignored. Up to ~1+10 requests per seed; partial failures per source in errors. A seed report with 'ambiguous' names several Google entities (e.g. Apple the company vs the fruit): ask the user before writing, then re-run with a more specific phrase (a mid only works for Google Trends, not for News / Wikipedia / Autocomplete). limit: clusters (1-25).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "seeds": "<seeds>"
    },
    "name": "aeo_opportunities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`geo`	No
`limit`	No
`seeds`	Yes
`timeframe`	No	today 3-m
`site_queries`	No
`exclude_covered`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / exclude_covered

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Exclude Covered",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / site_queries

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Site Queries"
+}

Addedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: request cost (~1+10 per seed), per-source partial failures surfaced in `errors`, spam-like rising queries being ignored, the mid ambiguity caveat limited to Google Trends, and the requirement to confirm with the user before writing on ambiguous seeds. Geo and timeframe behavior is left undisclosed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a long run-on with nested parentheticals ('(direction_now over 12 months, growth_3m)', '(a mid only works for Google Trends...)') that force re-reading. Much is earned, but the structure could be broken into clearer clauses without losing content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a compound multi-source tool the description covers cost, failure modes, ambiguity handling and score composition, and an output schema exists so return shape needn't be spelled out. The remaining hole is scope semantics for geo and timeframe.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains seeds (1-5), site_queries (source and semantics), exclude_covered (drops covered clusters) and limit (clusters 1-25), but says nothing about geo or timeframe, leaving two of six parameters with no meaning anywhere.

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 opens with a specific identity ('AEO opportunity finder') and then states exactly what it produces: question-shaped searches from 1-5 seeds, clustered by seed and title angle, each scored on trend, News coverage, Wikipedia, site coverage and evidence type. It is clearly not the same as mine_questions or suggest_keywords, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives operational context (1-5 seeds, asking the user when a seed is 'ambiguous', sourcing site_queries from a Search Console MCP or page titles, exclude_covered for dropping covered clusters), but it never states when to choose this tool over mine_questions, related_queries or suggest_keywords. Usage is implied by the output rather than routed explicitly.

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