Odysseus Web MCP
Integrates Brave Search as a provider for discovering public web sources via the web_search tool.
Integrates DuckDuckGo as a search provider for finding public web sources and ranked results.
Integrates SearXNG as a search provider in the fallback chain, enabling web searches to discover sources.
Integrates Wikipedia as a search provider in the fallback chain for discovering sources.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Odysseus Web MCPSearch for the official Model Context Protocol docs and fetch the architecture page."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Odysseus Web MCP — Secure Web Search and Fetch Server for AI Assistants
Odysseus Web MCP is a standalone Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for safe public-web search and URL fetching. It runs locally over stdio and gives MCP-compatible AI assistants two retrieval tools: web_search to discover sources and web_fetch to retrieve and extract public URLs.
Built for clients such as Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex, it combines search-provider fallback, readable HTML/PDF/text extraction, optional JavaScript rendering, and SSRF protections including DNS validation and redirect rechecks.


Features
Search the public web with provider fallback and ranked, attributed sources.
Fetch and extract HTML, PDF, and text content from public URLs.
Protect against SSRF with public-network checks, DNS validation, and redirect revalidation.
Return bounded, evidence-oriented output with cursors, quality signals, and discovered links.
Optionally render JavaScript-heavy pages in isolated Playwright.
Related MCP server: pyaireader
Install in minutes
Requirements: Python 3.11+ and uv.
# after downloading/extracting this folder (or cloning your copy)
cd odysseus-web-mcp
uv venv .venv
uv pip install -e '.[dev]'
./run-web-mcp.shThe server communicates over stdio, so it does not open a web port and does not need to be installed into your host application's Python environment. Register the absolute launcher path in your MCP client:
{
"name": "odysseus-web-mcp",
"command": "/absolute/path/to/odysseus-web-mcp/run-web-mcp.sh",
"args": [],
"cwd": "/absolute/path/to/odysseus-web-mcp"
}The launcher automatically uses the package's .venv. State defaults to
~/.local/share/odysseus-web-mcp; set WEB_MCP_DATA_DIR to place it
elsewhere. No API key is required for the default fallback path, though Brave,
Tavily, and Serper keys can be added when you want those providers.
The two tools
web_search
Use it to discover sources for a focused question. It accepts one to three queries plus optional mode, vertical, and freshness controls.
{
"queries": "Model Context Protocol Python SDK",
"mode": "discovery",
"vertical": "general"
}The response contains ranked URLs, titles, snippets, provider attempts,
cache state, a plain-text display projection, and an evidence_id. A host can
take any returned URL directly into web_fetch.
web_fetch
Use it to read a known public URL or a bounded batch of URLs.
{
"url": "https://example.com",
"focus": "the page's purpose",
"render": "auto"
}It returns extracted text, title and document kind, content quality, link
discovery, redirect history, HTTP status, truncation/continuation metadata,
and an evidence_id. Private and special-use destinations are rejected before
transport by default.
Example: how an agent uses the MCP
An agent normally uses the tools as a two-step retrieval loop: search first, then fetch the source it wants to inspect. The payloads below show the shape of a real MCP interaction; IDs and result text are abbreviated for readability.
1. Agent searches for sources
{
"name": "web_search",
"arguments": {
"queries": "official Model Context Protocol architecture",
"mode": "grounding",
"vertical": "general"
}
}The MCP returns a text content block containing structured JSON:
{
"status": "ok",
"query": "official Model Context Protocol architecture",
"sources": [
{
"title": "Architecture - Model Context Protocol",
"url": "https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/concepts/architecture",
"snippet": "Understand the architecture and communication model...",
"provider": "duckduckgo",
"relevance_score": 1.0
}
],
"provider_attempts": {
"searxng": "empty",
"duckduckgo": "ok"
},
"evidence_id": "a1b2c3d4...",
"exit_code": 0
}2. Agent fetches the selected source
The agent takes the returned URL and calls the second tool:
{
"name": "web_fetch",
"arguments": {
"url": "https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/concepts/architecture",
"focus": "How do clients and servers communicate?",
"render": "auto"
}
}The MCP returns bounded, extracted evidence:
{
"success": true,
"url": "https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/concepts/architecture",
"final_url": "https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/concepts/architecture",
"http_status": 200,
"document_kind": "html",
"content_quality": "good",
"content": "The Model Context Protocol defines how clients and servers...",
"links": [
{
"url": "https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/concepts/transports",
"text": "Transports"
}
],
"evidence_id": "e5f6g7h8...",
"exit_code": 0
}The agent can now answer the user from the extracted content, preserve the
evidence_id for traceability, and continue with another web_fetch using a
returned cursor if the page was longer than the output budget.
How it works locally
MCP host ──stdio──▶ mcp_server.py
├─ web_search → provider chain → ranked evidence
└─ web_fetch → security → HTTP/extract/render → evidenceAll persistent state is rooted under WEB_MCP_DATA_DIR. The package has no
runtime imports from Odysseus and no access to its credentials, database,
memory, browser profiles, scheduler, or agent loop.
Read the full local system design in
docs/TECHNICAL_DESIGN.md, and see how the GIFs
were recorded in docs/INTERACTIVE_DEMO.md.
Search providers and configuration
The default provider chain is:
SearXNG → Brave → Tavily → Serper → DuckDuckGo → Wikipedia → BingConfigure it with WEB_MCP_SEARCH_PROVIDER_CHAIN. Optional credentials are
DATA_BRAVE_API_KEY, TAVILY_API_KEY, and SERPER_API_KEY. Copy
.env.example as a reference, but keep secrets in the host
environment rather than committing them.
The optional browser path is disabled by default:
uv pip install -e '.[render]'
./.venv/bin/python -m playwright install chromium
export WEB_MCP_RENDER_ENABLED=trueDistribution and discovery
The server is published in the official MCP Registry
under io.github.AceAtDev/odysseus-web-mcp.
For Claude Desktop and other MCPB-compatible clients, download the validated
MCPB release bundle
from the v0.1.0 GitHub Release.
The bundle uses the uv runtime to resolve the declared Python dependencies
without shipping a machine-specific virtual environment.
Verify it yourself
The project has a focused test suite and a live qualification runner:
./.venv/bin/python -m pytest -q
./.venv/bin/python tests/live_20_cases.py --output reports/live-20-cases.jsonThe live qualification runs 10 searches and 10 fetches through the real MCP
launcher with disposable state. The latest verification record is in
VERIFICATION.md.
To re-record the terminal previews from fresh live calls (requires
ImageMagick's convert command):
./.venv/bin/python demos/record_terminal_demos.pyEach GIF is intentionally under ten seconds and shows a real MCP handshake and result shape, not a static product mockup.
Project boundaries
This package is a retrieval primitive, not an agent loop, general-purpose crawler, scheduler, memory store, browser-profile manager, or credential vault. It is designed to be downloaded and connected as an independent MCP server.
License and status
This is the standalone extraction workspace for the Odysseus web search/fetch
capability. See MIGRATION_MAP.md for the source-to-module
mapping and VERIFICATION.md for the current evidence-based
status.
Available Tools
2 toolsweb_fetchARead-only
Read one known public URL or a bounded batch of URLs. Enforces public-URL SSRF checks, redirect and byte limits, returns extracted text, quality signals, discovered links, evidence_id, and cursor continuation when content is long.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | One known http or https URL or bare domain. | |
| full | No | Raise the download cap to the configured hard maximum. | |
| urls | No | Bounded batch of known URLs. | |
| focus | No | Question or section to prioritize in the projection. | |
| cursor | No | Paragraph cursor returned by an earlier fetch. | |
| render | No | Whether to use the optional isolated browser renderer. | auto |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: SSRF checks, redirect/byte limits, and the exact return payload (extracted text, quality signals, discovered links, evidence_id, cursor). This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists behaviors and outputs in a logical order. Every clause adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description enumerates all return components (extracted text, quality signals, discovered links, evidence_id, cursor) and key limits (SSRF, redirects, bytes). The agent has enough to invoke it correctly without missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description mentions cursor continuation and bounded batch, but these are already captured in the schema (e.g., cursor, maxItems). No additional semantic nuance beyond the schema is provided, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: reading one known public URL or a bounded batch, with explicit mention of SSRF checks and output elements. This distinguishes it from the sibling web_search, which is for discovery, by emphasizing 'known' URLs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via 'known public URL' but does not explicitly name web_search as the alternative for finding URLs. It provides context (known URLs) but lacks explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls at the implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
web_searchARead-only
Discover public web sources for focused questions. Returns provider outcomes, ranked source URLs, snippets, evidence_id, and truthful empty/partial status. Use web_fetch to read a known URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | grounding | |
| queries | Yes | One to three focused public-web queries. | |
| vertical | No | general | |
| freshness | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by promising 'truthful empty/partial status' and describing the return contents. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the added transparency about partial results is useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states the purpose, second sentence describes return values, third sentence directs to the sibling tool. No unnecessary words or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's core purpose and return fields and references the sibling tool, but it lacks explanations for important parameter semantics (mode, vertical, freshness) and provides no output schema. This leaves gaps in the agent's understanding of how to fully leverage the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the queries parameter has a description ('One to three focused public-web queries'). The mode, vertical, and freshness parameters are left unexplained beyond their enum values, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining their intended usage or impact on results. This sparse coverage is a significant gap for an agent selecting parameter values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover public web sources for focused questions.' It specifies exact return contents (ranked source URLs, snippets, evidence_id) and contrasts with web_fetch by saying 'Use web_fetch to read a known URL,' making the distinction from the sibling tool explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage guidance: use web_search to discover sources for focused questions, and use web_fetch to read a known URL. This is helpful but could be more explicit about when to choose web_search over web_fetch and when to use different modes or freshness values.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
web_fetch - First observed
web_search
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
web_search and web_fetch are clearly distinct: one discovers pages via queries, the other retrieves a known URL. No functional overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent web_verb pattern, making the surface predictable and easy to navigate.
Only two tools are exposed, which is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but each tool is essential and the set is appropriately narrow for a web search/fetch server.
Search and fetch cover the core web access workflow, including pagination/cursor handling, but the surface is minimal and may lack advanced retrieval features such as site-specific extraction or structured data parsing.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for web extraction and rendering via AceDataCloud WebExtrator
Stealth web browser for agents: search, fetch, click, download and type in persistent MCP sessions.
Experimental MCP server for current empirical verification of explicit public HTTPS endpoint claims.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that exposes powerful web search and scraping tools to AI agents and MCP-compatible clients.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for safely reading public URLs for AI agents, providing tools to fetch, extract, cache, and inspect web content as evidence.15MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceA local MCP server providing web search, page extraction, and safe browser automation tools for Hermes, Claude Code, and other MCP clients.10MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that brings Parallel web search and URL extraction to Codex and other Model Context Protocol clients.221-
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/AceAtDev/odysseus-web-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server