SearXNG Search
searxng_searchRead-onlyIdempotent
Search the public web through a live SearXNG instance pool.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
business-oss
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive false, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no additional behavioral details such as result formatting, potential errors, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant or extraneous words, making it easy to parse and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the complete schema, and the read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it.
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 schema fully documents both parameters with types and constraints, so the description does not need to restate them. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since there is no parameter description but schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('public web'), and the reference to a 'live SearXNG instance pool' distinguishes it from the sibling tools like rsshub_fetch and github_job_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or use cases. An agent would have to infer that this is for general web search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The five tools have mostly distinct purposes: business tool recommendations, GitHub job generation, stack listing, RSS fetching, and web search. There is minor overlap between business_tool_routes and list_stack, as both deal with tool stacks, but they target different audiences and outputs.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent. Tools like rsshub_fetch and searxng_search follow a verb_noun pattern, while business_tool_routes and github_job_template are noun phrases. list_stack is a verb_noun but the rest do not follow a uniform convention, making the API surface less predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 5 tools, the server sits comfortably within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool provides a distinct capability without unnecessary bloat or excessive fragmentation.
Completeness3/5
The domain is a mix of unrelated functionalities (business recommendations, GitHub actions, web search, RSS). While each tool covers its stated purpose, the lack of a cohesive domain makes it hard to assess whether any operations are missing. For example, there is no tool for managing or updating GitHub jobs beyond generating a template, and no explicit search for business or stack data beyond the provided routes.