Skip to main content
Glama
jaacob

Perplexity MCP Server

by jaacob
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools, making disambiguation perfect. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as web search using Perplexity AI, leaving no room for misselection.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool named 'search' follows a consistent and straightforward verb-based naming pattern. There are no other tools to compare against, so no inconsistency can exist in the naming scheme.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for a server named 'Perplexity MCP Server', which implies broader capabilities beyond just search. A single tool feels thin and under-scoped for what might be expected from a Perplexity AI integration, such as additional operations like summarization or follow-up queries.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a web search domain; it only offers a basic search function without any complementary tools for refining results, getting summaries, or handling related queries. This creates significant gaps that could lead to agent failures in complex tasks.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search the web' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero waste or unnecessary verbiage. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, whether there are limitations on query types, how results are formatted, or any other operational details. The description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool usage.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'query' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Search the web') and specifies the resource/context ('using Perplexity AI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It's not a tautology and provides specific information about what the tool does. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where it's most appropriate. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context or limitations.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

perplexity-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

perplexity-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jaacob/perplexity-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server