SiteCheck Web Intel

Organic web search results from the Brave Search API: rank

search_google_search

Read-only

Organic web search results from the Brave Search API (an independent web index, not Google's): rank, title, URL, snippet, site name, page age and language for the first page of results. Optional country and freshness filters. No ads or SERP features. Related tools on this server, for a different need: search_google_ads when you need Google Ads Transparency Center: search advertisers by name; search_google_news when you need Google News search: headline, publisher, publish time. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_google_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Search query (1 to 200 characters)
`limit`	No	How many results, 1 to 20 (default 10)
`country`	No	Optional 2-letter country for local results, e.g. us, gb, de
`freshness`	No	Optional: pd (past day), pw (past week), pm (past month), py (past year)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds that results are limited to the first page, contain no ads or SERP features, and that billing is $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 across three chains with failures uncharged. The payment and no-pagination details are material facts an agent cannot infer from annotations; only the absence of any latency, caching, or result-count behavior keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the sibling routing plus pricing follow in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long for a four-parameter search tool, with the parenthetical index clarification and the full pricing sentence both slightly compressed, but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a read-only open-world search with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, what it does not return, the freshness and country dimensions, and the micro-payment requirement that gates a successful call. No behavioral or prerequisite detail is conspicuously absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description adds little beyond noting that country and freshness are optional filters. It doesn't explain query syntax, how country interacts with freshness, or why limit is typed as a string rather than an integer. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource (organic web search results from the Brave Search API) and immediately resolves the naming ambiguity by clarifying it is an independent index, not Google's, despite the tool name. It enumerates the returned fields and scope (first page of results), which lets an agent distinguish it from the Google-branded siblings without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly routes the agent away with named alternatives and their conditions: search_google_ads for advertiser lookups in the Ads Transparency Center, and search_google_news for headline/publisher/publish-time queries. What's missing is a positive statement of the condition that selects this tool (general open-web retrieval) and any exclusions such as rate limits or query restrictions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?