Skip to main content
Glama

googlesearch-api

by com.jojapi

/search/

get_search

/search/ Billing per call: 1 Credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoParameter defines the query you want to search. You can use anything that you would use in a regular Google search. e.g. inurl:, site:, intitle:. We also support advanced search query parameters such as as_dt and as_eq. See the full list of supported advanced search query parameters.
glNoParameter defines the country to use for the Google search. It's a two-letter country code. (e.g., US for the United States, UK for United Kingdom, or FR for France). Head to the Google countries page for a full list of supported Google countries.
hlNoParameter defines the language to use for the Google search. It's a two-letter language code. (e.g., en for English, es for Spanish, or fr for French). Head to the Google languages page for a full list of supported Google languages.
lrNoParameter defines one or multiple languages to limit the search to. It uses lang_{two-letter language code} to specify languages and
startNoParameter defines the result offset. It skips the given number of results. It's used for pagination. (e.g., 0 (default) is the first page of results, 10 is the 2nd page of results, 20 is the 3rd page of results, etc.). Google Local Results only accepts multiples of 20(e.g. 20 for the second page results, 40 for the third page results, etc.) as the start value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations were provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It only mentions billing per call, which is minimal and unhelpful.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely under-specified, not truly concise. A single fragment with billing info does not constitute concise communication of purpose.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool does, what it returns, or any context needed for usage. It is almost entirely unhelpful for an agent.

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?

The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema has detailed parameter descriptions with 100% coverage. Since schema coverage is high, this meets the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description is only '/search/ Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It does not state what the tool does with a specific verb and resource. It merely restates the title and billing, providing no clarity on functionality.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no context 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.

All googlesearch-api toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity between tools. However, the tool's purpose is singular and clear, so disambiguation is not a concern.

Naming Consistency3/5

The single tool name 'get_search' follows a verb_noun pattern, which is consistent. With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied, but the pattern is reasonable.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool for a search API feels extremely thin. Even a basic search API would typically offer multiple search types, pagination, or result filtering, so the count is too low for the apparent scope.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete. A search API would need options for different search types, pagination, result limits, and possibly language or region parameters. With only a single generic 'get_search' tool, agents will likely hit dead ends.

Resources