x402-gated web search gateway. Tools: search, search_enriched.
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.
Average 2.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools perform web search, but one returns raw results while the other adds an AI-generated summary. The descriptions clearly differentiate them, though an agent might briefly pause to decide which is needed.
Both tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: 'search' and 'search_enriched'. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal. For a search server, this is borderline acceptable but feels slightly thin, as one might expect additional tools like pagination or site-specific search.
The domain is web search, and the two tools cover basic search and enriched search with summaries. Missing features like pagination, filtering, or scraping individual pages represent notable but not severe gaps.
searchCInspectWeb search → structured results (title, url, snippet)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | search query | |
| api_key | No | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output format but does not disclose behavior such as rate limits, error handling, or the need for an API key. The presence of an undocumented 'api_key' parameter suggests a behavioral requirement not discussed.
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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
The tool has no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage. The description is too sparse to be complete. It omits important context like default values, behavior without an API key, and pagination or result limits.
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 only 33% (only 'query' has a minimal description). The description adds no additional parameter details. The 'api_key' and 'max_results' parameters are left completely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 tool performs a web search and returns structured results with specific fields (title, url, snippet). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_enriched', though the implication is that this provides basic results.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., API key), or situations where 'search_enriched' might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_enrichedCInspectWeb search + Claude-generated sourced summary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | search query | |
| api_key | No | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Claude-generated' but does not explain that this may involve additional latency, API calls, or how sources are selected. The summary generation implies AI behavior not elaborated.
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 short (two phrases) but is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It could add critical details without becoming verbose.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to convey the return format, behavior of max_results, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'sourced summary'. Leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 33% (only 'query' described). The description does not detail the 'api_key' or 'max_results' parameters, nor does it explain how they affect the search or summary. Fails to compensate for low coverage.
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 tool performs web search and returns a Claude-generated summary with sources. It distinguishes from the sibling 'search' by adding the summary component, but 'sourced' is ambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. the sibling 'search' tool. No context on prerequisites or ideal use cases.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.