Skip to main content
Glama

Serpapi

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Serpapi Google News

serpapi_google_news
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Google News for <query> — returns headline, source, link, date, and snippet via SerpApi. Example: serpapi_google_news({ q: "openai", gl: "us", hl: "en", _apiKey: "your-serpapi-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesNews search query, e.g. "openai", "federal reserve rate"
glNoOptional two-letter country code, e.g. "us", "gb"
hlNoOptional two-letter UI language code, e.g. "en", "fr"
_apiKeyYesSerpApi API key (get one at serpapi.com)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety. Description adds that it returns headline, source, link, date, snippet, which is useful context. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and return value, second shows an example. No wasted words, front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given simple 4-parameter tool with good annotations, the description adequately covers return fields and shows an example. Could mention pagination or result count, but it's sufficient for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description includes an example, which adds marginal value but doesn't provide new semantic details beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches Google News and returns specific fields (headline, source, link, date, snippet). The verb 'Search' and resource 'Google News' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like serpapi_google_jobs or serpapi_google_maps.

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?

Description indicates when to use (search Google News) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, sibling names provide clear context, and the tool is self-explanatory for its domain.

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

All Serpapi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all querying data but with nuanced differences. The descriptions help but boundaries remain fuzzy, especially between ask_pipeworx and deep_research for broad vs. single lookups. Overall moderate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check), others use camelCase (serpapi_google_jobs), and patterns vary widely (e.g., pipeworx_feedback vs. compare_entities). Only the serpapi_google_* group follows a consistent pattern.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side for a single server, with many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) and niche prediction market tools. The scope seems overly broad, covering data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions, which could be streamlined to a more focused set.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (financial, economic, news, drugs, prediction markets, Google services), but lacks direct web search and write/update capabilities. While the coverage is broad, there are notable gaps (e.g., no generic web search, limited tool for modifying data) for a data-focused server.

Resources