web_search
web_searchLive web search: fresh results + short AI answer. ~$0.005.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
web_searchLive web search: fresh results + short AI answer. ~$0.005.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate open world and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds cost (~$0.005) and output format ('short AI answer'), which are useful behavioral details. No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core function. No filler or redundant content.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description captures the essential behavior (fresh results, AI answer, cost). It is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage with a description for q ('Search query'). The description does not add further parameter details, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 a specific action ('web search') and resource ('web'), and notes it returns live results plus an AI answer. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like ask_ai or research_report.
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 'Live web search' implies it is for up-to-date information from the web, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.