Skip to main content
Glama
kevinwatt

SearXNG MCP Server

by kevinwatt
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
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 ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as performing web searches using SearXNG, making it distinct by default.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'web_search' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is appropriate for its function.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for a server named 'SearXNG MCP Server', which suggests a broader scope for search functionality. While the tool covers general web searches, the lack of additional tools (e.g., for image search, news-specific searches, or configuration) makes the set feel thin and underdeveloped for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a search server. It only provides general web search, missing obvious extensions like image search, video search, news search, or advanced filtering tools that would be expected in a comprehensive search interface, leading to significant gaps in functionality.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns relevant results from multiple search engines combined,' adding useful behavioral context about result aggregation. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a search tool.

    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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists key features in a single, well-structured sentence. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (67%), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose and key features but lacks details on return format, error cases, or advanced usage, which could help an agent use it more effectively in varied contexts.

    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 67%, and the description adds some value by mentioning support for 'multiple search categories, languages, time ranges and safe search filtering,' which aligns with parameters like categories, language, time_range, and safesearch. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents, such as details on query formatting or page behavior.

    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 tool 'performs a web search using SearXNG' and specifies it's for 'general queries, news, articles and online content.' It provides a specific verb ('performs') and resource ('web search'), though it doesn't need to distinguish from siblings since none exist.

    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 description mentions it's 'ideal for general queries, news, articles and online content,' which implies usage context but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation isn't needed, but broader guidance is limited.

    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

mcp-server-searxng MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-searxng 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/kevinwatt/mcp-server-searxng'

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