MCP Web Engine

web_search

Run aggregate multi-engine web searches that return structured results for a query. Use it to gather ranked sources and snippets before fetching or summarizing pages.

Instructions

Performs aggregate multi-engine web search returning structured search results.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "web_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results to return (1-25)
`query`	Yes	The search query keywords

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: results come from multiple engines and are returned in a structured form rather than as raw pages. It says nothing about result ranking or de-duplication across engines, rate limits, or error behavior, and never states that the operation is read-only.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with zero padding, and the core purpose (search) is front-loaded along with the aggregation behavior. It could carry one more short clause about usage without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool is simple: two parameters and no output schema. Because there is no output schema, the phrase 'structured search results' is the only hint at the return shape, and it is too vague to say what fields an agent will receive. That leaves a real gap for a simple but heavily used 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 description coverage is 100%, so the query string and the 1-25 limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, operator, or formatting guidance for the query, which leaves it at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Performs aggregate multi-engine web search') and adds a differentiating trait, that results are aggregated across multiple engines. It never names the siblings fetch_url or extract_markdown, so an agent must infer on its own that this tool is for discovery rather than retrieval of a known URL.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as fetch_url or extract_markdown. The only hint that this tool is for discovery rather than fetching a page is the word 'search' itself.

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

Deploy Server