Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
trendzeist-mcp

trendzeist-mcp

by phalkmin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_keywords

Compare 2–5 keywords head-to-head to see relative share, leader, and trend direction, then choose the strongest angle or target term among alternatives.

Instructions

Compare 2-5 keywords head-to-head: relative share, leader and trend direction for each. Use to pick the strongest angle among alternatives. Each ranking row has a role (leader / rising challenger / declining / niche / steady) and a content_implication; winner is the term to target (a rising challenger beats a falling or dead leader; null + winner_reason when nothing has data or interest) and seo_interpretation sums it up in one sentence.

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": {
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "compare_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geoNo
gpropNo
categoryNo
keywordsYes
timeframeNotoday 12-m

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose notable behavior: the ranking role taxonomy, the tie-break rule that 'a rising challenger beats a falling or dead leader,' and the null winner plus winner_reason case when no data exists. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or the 2-5 bound's failure mode, but the selection logic is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then output semantics, with no filler sentences. It spends several clauses describing return fields that an output schema already documents, which is the only real redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is optional, but with five undocumented parameters and no annotations the definition should say at least what geo/gprop/timeframe control. It is adequate for understanding the result shape yet incomplete for calling the tool correctly with non-default arguments.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description only constrains the keywords array (2-5 items). Geo, gprop, category, and timeframe are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus a hard scope: 'Compare 2-5 keywords head-to-head' with relative share, leader and trend direction. The multi-term comparison framing implicitly separates it from single-term siblings like interest_over_time or trend_history, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stays just short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use to pick the strongest angle among alternatives' gives a clear decision context for invoking it. It does not state when to avoid it or name the alternative tool to use for single-keyword trends, which is the main remaining gap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools