Skip to main content
Glama

Searchapi

by io.searchapi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Bing Search

bing_search
Read-only

Search the web using Bing. Returns organic results, related searches and more. Alternative to Google for web search with different ranking algorithms and results.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query. Required.
pageNoPage number for pagination. Default: 1.
locationNoLocation for localized results (e.g., 'New York, United States').
market_codeNoBing market code combining language and country (e.g., 'en-us', 'de-de', 'fr-fr', 'ja-jp').
next_page_tokenNoToken from `pagination.next_page_token` in the previous response, used with the same q. It continues right after the last result shown and takes precedence over `page`, so prefer it over `page` for later pages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / next_page_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token from `pagination.next_page_token` in the previous response, used with the same q. It continues right after the last result shown and takes precedence over `page`, so prefer it over `page` for later pages.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results include organic results and related searches, which is modest extra context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no redundancy. The trailing 'and more' is mild filler but the overall sizing is appropriate for a simple search tool.

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?

For a single-required-parameter read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus structured fields give the agent enough to invoke correctly. It could be stronger on result format and pagination expectations, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, including a detailed next_page_token precedence note, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already documents; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the web using Bing') and names the return content ('organic results, related searches'). The 'Alternative to Google' line gestures at differentiation from search siblings like google_search_light, but never names which sibling to prefer when.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'alternative to Google... with different ranking algorithms' line implies the choice condition (use this when you want Bing's ranking) but never states explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor names the competing sibling tools directly.

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

All Searchapi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources