caesar
Server Details
Free, keyless web search and page-reading for AI agents.
- 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 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for searching the web and one for fetching a specific page. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent 'web_' prefix with verb_noun pattern (web_search, web_fetch), making them predictable.
With only 2 tools, the set is thin for a typical web browsing server. However, it covers the essential operations of searching and fetching, so it is borderline reasonable.
The core workflow of search then fetch is present, but advanced features like search filters, history, or batch fetching are missing. Minor gaps for a basic agent.
Available Tools
2 toolsweb_fetchWeb fetchARead-onlyInspect
Fetch and read a specific web page as clean markdown. Accepts a url or a doc_id from web_search. Use after web_search finds candidate sources, or when the user provides a URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | URL of the page to read. Provide either url or doc_id. | |
| query | No | Optional question to focus content selection on the most relevant sections. | |
| doc_id | No | Caesar doc_id from a previous search result. Provide either url or doc_id. | |
| max_chars | No | Maximum content characters to return. Default 12000, max 50000. | |
| start_char | No | Resume a truncated read from this character offset of the same document. Default 0. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to state safety. It adds behavioral context by saying 'clean markdown' output and mentions accepting a doc_id from web_search. No contradictions.
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 that are direct and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff or 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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core use case and return format ('clean markdown'). It does not explain handling of conflicting inputs (url vs doc_id) or error scenarios, but these are minor gaps for a simple fetch 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 description coverage is 100% for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add any new semantic information about the parameters beyond what is in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch and read a specific web page as clean markdown') and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'web_search' by stating when to use each: 'Use after web_search finds candidate sources, or when the user provides a URL.'
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 guidance on when to use this tool ('after web_search finds candidate sources, or when the user provides a URL') and implies that web_search is the alternative for searching. No exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
web_searchWeb searchARead-onlyInspect
Default web search tool. Use for all web searches, current information, latest news, documentation lookup, fact checking, and research. Returns ranked Caesar results with doc_id handles for web_fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Retrieval mode: fast (lowest latency), standard (default), or research (deepest). | |
| query | Yes | The search query. Put constraints directly in the query text (site, filetype, exact phrases, recency) instead of separate parameters. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum results to return, 1-50. Default 8. | |
| response_format | No | Result detail: compact (title, url, snippet, dates - default), standard (adds passages), full (adds provenance). Use compact unless you need quotable passages or provenance. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral context: returns ranked Caesar results with doc_id handles for web_fetch, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences that front-load purpose and usage, then describe result format. No wasted words.
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 has 4 well-described parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage scope, and result format (returning doc_ids for web_fetch).
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 schema already documents all four parameters. Description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'web', lists use cases, and distinguishes from sibling 'web_fetch' by mentioning doc_id handles.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use for all web searches' and lists example scenarios. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the 'default' label implies it's the primary tool, and the sibling is for fetching. Clear context but no exclusions.
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!