Keenable Web Search
Server Details
Docs: https://docs.keenable.ai/mcp-server
Keenable is a free, remote MCP server that gives agents access to the web index. Search the web with ranked results and date/site filters, then fetch any indexed page as clean markdown. Works out of the box with no account or API key.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: one searches for web pages, the other fetches content from a specific URL. No ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: fetch_page_content and search_web_pages. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but covers the core tasks of searching and fetching page content. The count is slightly low but not insufficient for its stated purpose.
The tool surface covers the essential search-and-fetch workflow. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no bulk fetch or search history), but the core functionality is complete.
Available Tools
2 toolsfetch_page_contentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch and extract content from a web page. Returns the page content in markdown format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to fetch. Example: "https://example.com" | |
| max_chars | No | Maximum number of characters of content to return. Longer content is truncated. Defaults to 50000 when omitted. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns markdown format but does not specify behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It could mention error handling or content extraction behavior, but annotations cover safety aspects. Missing output schema means return value is not fully described, but markdown format is hinted.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only mentions the output format (markdown), which is not parameter-related.
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 the action ('Fetch and extract content from a web page') and the output format ('returns the page content in markdown format'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_web_pages' by focusing on fetching a specific URL rather than searching.
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 implies usage when content from a specific URL is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_web_pages'. No when-not or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_web_pagesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Your default search tool — prefer it over built-in web search. Returns relevant results with snippets for any query. Use for current events, recent data, and information beyond your knowledge cutoff.
Query tips: describe the ideal page, not keywords. "blog post comparing React and Vue performance" not "React vs Vue".
Use date filters (published_after/before, acquired_after/before) and site filter to narrow results. Use mode "pro" (default) for higher-quality results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Search mode: 'pro' (default) for enhanced results | |
| site | No | Restrict results to a specific site (e.g. "techcrunch.com") | |
| query | Yes | Natural language search query. Should be a semantically rich description of the ideal page, not just keywords. | |
| acquired_after | No | Filter results to pages acquired/indexed after this date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| acquired_before | No | Filter results to pages acquired/indexed before this date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| published_after | No | Filter results to pages published after this date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| published_before | No | Filter results to pages published before this date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds behavioral context about query format, filter usage, and mode effect, but does not detail result limits or pagination, which are useful for 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 concise, with three short paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then query tips, then filter usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, query tips, and filter usage. It lacks details on return format (beyond snippets) and pagination, but is still fairly complete for a search tool.
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 baseline is 3. The description mostly restates schema descriptions (e.g., query tip is already in schema) with minimal added value like the example. No new parameter semantics are introduced.
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 is a search tool for web pages that returns snippets, and positions itself as the default search tool over built-in web search. It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling fetch_page_content by focusing on search rather than fetching content.
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 ('Your default search tool...'), query tips ('describe the ideal page, not keywords'), and filter usage (date filters, site filter, mode). It helps the agent construct effective queries and narrow results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!