面向AI的Reddit讨论趋势数据 衡量Reddit上任何话题的讨论热度。社区讨论量、增长中的子版块兴趣以及历史活动数据——均可通过AI查询，无需受Reddit API限制。
完整文档和在线演示： https://trendsmcp.ai/reddit-trends
属于 Trends MCP 的一部分——覆盖12+数据源的实时趋势数据MCP服务器。 查看主仓库：https://github.com/trendsmcp/trends-mcp
第一步： 在 trendsmcp.ai 获取免费API密钥 每天100次请求，无需信用卡。
第二步： 添加到你的AI客户端（将 YOUR_API_KEY 替换为你的密钥）：
Cursor / Windsurf / Cline （~/.cursor/mcp.json 或等效文件）
{
"mcpServers": {
"trends-mcp": {
"url": "https://api.trendsmcp.ai/mcp",
"transport": "http",
"headers": { "Authorization": "Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" }
}
}
}VS Code / GitHub Copilot （.vscode/mcp.json）
{
"servers": {
"trends-mcp": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://api.trendsmcp.ai/mcp",
"headers": { "Authorization": "Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" }
}
}
}Claude Desktop （claude_desktop_config.json）
用户 → 设置 → 开发者 → 编辑配置 — 在 mcpServers 内添加
{
"mcpServers": {
"trends-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"mcp-remote",
"https://api.trendsmcp.ai/mcp",
"--header",
"Authorization:${AUTH_HEADER}"
],
"env": {
"AUTH_HEADER": "Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"
}
}
}
}Claude.ai（浏览器） 设置 -> 连接器 -> 添加自定义连接器：
https://api.trendsmcp.ai/mcpRelated MCP server: Reddit MCP Server
连接后，向你的AI提问：
get_trends(keyword='electric vehicles', source='reddit', data_mode='weekly')工具 | 功能说明 |
| 获取该数据源中某个关键词的时间序列数据 |
| 获取1周、1月、3月、6月、1年周期的增长率 |
| 获取该数据源当前的热门趋势 |
| 按讨论量排序的热门话题 |
Reddit 讨论量趋势——某个话题在平台上的标准化兴趣随时间变化，包括增长率和历史时间序列。不是原始帖子数量，而是经过标准化处理的、适合趋势比较的需求信号。
对于量级信号，是的。Trends MCP 可以显示围绕某个品牌的讨论是在增长还是萎缩。对于情绪分析，新闻数据源提供情绪评分；Reddit 提供纯量级背景信息。
当前信号是针对关键词的全平台 Reddit 讨论量。子版块级别的过滤功能已在路线图中。
Reddit 通常反映小众、爱好者和早期采用者社区，这些话题往往先于主流 Google 搜索出现。对比两者可以揭示兴趣仍处于地下阶段还是正在走向主流。
Trends MCP 通过一个连接覆盖12+数据源： Google 搜索、YouTube、TikTok、Reddit、亚马逊、维基百科、 新闻情绪、网站流量、应用下载量、Steam、npm 等。
浏览全部：https://trendsmcp.ai/data-sources
相同的 API 密钥可直接在 Python 中使用——无需 MCP 主机。
pip install reddit-trends-mcpimport os
from reddit_trends_mcp import TrendsMcpClient, SOURCE
client = TrendsMcpClient(api_key=os.environ["TRENDSMCP_API_KEY"])
series = client.get_trends(source=SOURCE, keyword="your keyword")
growth = client.get_growth(source=SOURCE, keyword="your keyword", percent_growth=["1M", "3M", "12M"])
top = client.get_top_trends(type="Reddit", limit=10)MIT © Trends MCP
Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources. Each window is a preset string (12M, 3M, YTD, and the other listed periods). Values are on a 0-100 scale, plus absolute volume when available. Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions. app downloads and app rankings are keyword sources (Android bundle ID). They are not the App Store / Google Play live boards on get_top_trends. If the request is rate limited or the monthly quota is used up, tell the user their plan limit is reached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | One source, or comma-separated sources (e.g. 'amazon, tiktok, youtube'). Valid: 'google search', 'google images', 'google news', 'google shopping', 'youtube', 'wikipedia', 'tiktok', 'reddit', 'amazon', 'news sentiment', 'news volume', 'npm', 'python', 'steam', 'app downloads', 'app rankings'. | |
| keyword | Yes | What to look up. The string format is required by source. Standard sources (google search, google images, google news, google shopping, youtube, wikipedia, tiktok, reddit, amazon, news sentiment, news volume): any name or phrase, e.g. 'nike'. npm: exact npmjs.com package name, case-sensitive. Right: 'react', '@babel/core'. Wrong: 'React', 'React.js'. python: exact PyPI project name. Right: 'pandas', 'requests'. Wrong: 'Pandas'. steam: game display name in plain English, not a Steam App ID. Right: 'Elden Ring', 'CS2'. First Steam store search result wins, so use an unambiguous name. app downloads and app rankings: Android bundle ID only (the id= value on Google Play). Right: 'com.openai.chatgpt', 'com.whatsapp'. Wrong: 'ChatGPT', 'WhatsApp', an iOS App Store ID, or a bundle ID that is not Android. Find it at play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=THIS_PART. If the request includes app downloads or app rankings with other sources, keyword must still be the Android bundle ID. | |
| percent_growth | No | Growth windows. Default if omitted: ['12M']. Each item must be a preset string: '7D', '1W', '14D', '2W', '30D', '1M', '2M', '3M', '6M', '9M', '12M', '1Y', '18M', '24M', '2Y', '36M', '3Y', '48M', '4Y', '60M', '5Y', 'MTD', 'QTD', 'YTD'. Every preset is a two-date comparison. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: values are on a 0-100 scale with absolute volume when available, and the agent should tell the user their plan limit is reached on rate limiting or quota exhaustion. These details are not present in the structured fields and do not contradict the annotations.
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 every sentence earns its place: core operation, output scale, sibling preference, app-source caveat, and rate-limit handling. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids redundant phrasing.
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?
With a detailed input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: tool selection, output scale, source disambiguation, and error behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.
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?
The input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, including valid sources, keyword formatting rules per source, and every preset growth window. The description references preset windows and Android bundle IDs but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources.' It also names sibling tools to disambiguate itself, stating it is preferred over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app sources are not the live boards on get_top_trends.
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?
It gives an explicit selection rule: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also warns against confusing app downloads/app rankings with get_top_trends live boards, and specifies how to handle rate limits or quota exhaustion. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full historical series for one keyword and one source (0-100 values, plus volume when available). Use for charting or custom math. Not for live 'what's trending now' boards (use get_top_trends). For most growth questions, use get_growth. If the request is rate limited or the monthly quota is used up, tell the user their plan limit is reached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Exactly one source per request. Valid: 'google search', 'google images', 'google news', 'google shopping', 'youtube', 'wikipedia', 'tiktok', 'reddit', 'amazon', 'news sentiment', 'news volume', 'npm', 'python', 'steam', 'app downloads', 'app rankings'. | |
| keyword | Yes | What to look up. The string format is required by source. Standard sources (google search, google images, google news, google shopping, youtube, wikipedia, tiktok, reddit, amazon, news sentiment, news volume): any name or phrase, e.g. 'tesla'. npm: exact npmjs.com package name, case-sensitive. Right: 'react', '@babel/core'. Wrong: 'React', 'React.js'. python: exact PyPI project name. Right: 'pandas', 'requests'. Wrong: 'Pandas'. steam: game display name in plain English, not a Steam App ID. Right: 'Elden Ring', 'CS2'. First Steam store search result wins, so use an unambiguous name. app downloads and app rankings: Android bundle ID only (the id= value on Google Play). Right: 'com.openai.chatgpt', 'com.whatsapp'. Wrong: 'ChatGPT', 'WhatsApp', an iOS App Store ID, or a bundle ID that is not Android. Find it at play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=THIS_PART. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond those hints: the 0-100 value range, volume availability, and rate-limit/quota handling instructions. This provides useful operational detail that annotations do not convey, though the core safety profile is already covered by hints.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, usage routing, and error handling. Front-loaded with the core purpose; no repetition or fluff. The alternative tool routing is included efficiently.
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?
Given a two-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, alternatives, and error handling. An agent has all necessary information to decide when to call it and what to expect, with no critical gaps.
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% and both parameters have detailed, source-specific descriptions (e.g., keyword format per source, valid source list). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating 'one keyword and one source', so the baseline for full schema coverage 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 explicitly states it returns 'Full historical series for one keyword and one source' with a value range and volume detail. It distinguishes itself from siblings get_top_trends and get_growth by stating what it is not for (live trending, growth questions), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
Directly states when to use it: 'Use for charting or custom math' and when not to: 'Not for live trending (use get_top_trends)' and 'For most growth questions, use get_growth'. Also provides explicit handling for rate-limited or quota-exhausted requests, which is actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Live top-trending board for exactly one feed type. No keyword. For 'Amazon Best Sellers by Category', 'Google Trends by Category', 'Top Websites', and 'Substack by Category', always pass category. Default sort is current rank. Use sort='rank_change' for climbers vs a prior snapshot (window 1d, 3d, 7d, 14d, or 30d). App Store Top Free, App Store Top Paid, and Google Play are live store boards, not keyword lookups. For an app's history use get_growth or get_time_series with source app downloads or app rankings and an Android bundle ID. Do not use get_time_series for live boards. If the request is rate limited or the monthly quota is used up, tell the user their plan limit is reached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | How to rank the board. 'rank' (default): current leaders. 'rank_change': biggest climbers vs a prior snapshot. Mover rows include rank, keyword, prev_rank, and rank_change. | rank |
| type | Yes | Exactly one live feed. Valid: 'Amazon Best Sellers Top Rated', 'Amazon Best Sellers by Category', 'App Store Top Free', 'App Store Top Paid', 'GitHub', 'Google News Top News', 'Google Play', 'Google Trends', 'Google Trends by Category', 'IMDb MOVIEmeter', 'Open Library Trending Books', 'Reddit Hot Posts', 'Reddit World News', 'Top Websites', 'Spotify Top Podcasts', 'Steam Most Played', 'Substack', 'Substack by Category', 'TikTok Trending Hashtags', 'TikTok Trending Searches', 'Wikipedia Trending', 'X (Twitter) Trending', 'YouTube Trending'. | |
| limit | No | Max rows to return. Default 25, min 1, max 200. | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip for pagination. Default 0. | |
| window | No | Lookback used only when sort is 'rank_change'. One of '1d', '3d', '7d', '14d', '30d'. Default '30d'. Short windows only work on daily feeds; weekly and monthly feeds return a note pointing to a longer window. | 30d |
| category | No | Pass this whenever type is 'Amazon Best Sellers by Category', 'Google Trends by Category', 'Top Websites', or 'Substack by Category'. Use the official name. Without it those feeds mix every board. Only omit on a first pull to learn the official names. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, the description adds important behavioral context: rate limits and monthly quota handling, default sort behavior, rank-change snapshot windows, category omission behavior, and feed-type quirks. It discloses how the tool behaves in edge cases, which is exactly the kind of transparency that helps an agent.
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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, category rule, sort semantics, alternative tool routing, and rate-limit behavior are all covered in a compact, front-loaded format. No filler or repetition.
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?
Given six parameters, sibling tools, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: valid feed types, category requirements, sort/window semantics, pagination defaults handled in schema, alternatives, and rate-limit response. Nothing essential is missing.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable non-obvious semantics: category is mandatory for four specific feed types and mixing occurs otherwise, and sort='rank_change' compares against a prior snapshot. This goes beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a live top-trending board for exactly one feed type, and explicitly says 'No keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_growth and get_time_series without needing to open the schema.
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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: pass category for certain feeds, use sort='rank_change' for climbers, and use get_growth or get_time_series for app history. It even warns 'Do not use get_time_series for live boards,' giving clear exclusions and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0get_growthget_time_seriesget_top_trendsScored across 3 tools
get_top_trends is clearly distinct as a live board, while get_growth and get_time_series both operate on keyword/source history with 0-100 values. However, their descriptions explicitly separate growth questions from charting/custom math, so an agent can reliably choose between them.
All tools follow a consistent get_<noun> snake_case pattern: get_growth, get_time_series, get_top_trends. Each name clearly reflects the resource or action being retrieved, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Three tools cover the core trends workflow: growth comparisons, full historical series, and live top-trending boards. The count is small but well-scoped, and each tool has a distinct, necessary role.
The set covers the main trend-analysis needs: current rankings, growth over time, and detailed historical data. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated source/category discovery mechanism, but the descriptions provide enough guidance to work around this.
Reddit data for AI agents: posts, comments, subreddits, search. Community + sentiment research.
Reddit posts, comments, keyword search and historical archives as tools. Runs on Apify.
Reddit posts, comments, subreddits, and search for AI agents. Free key, self-minted, no signup.
Reddit discussion volume and subreddit growth over time. Free key at trendsapi.ai