astrbot-mcp

web_search

Search the web and retrieve titles, links, and summaries for a query, with optional result limits and search-backend selection.

Instructions

搜索网页并返回标题、链接与摘要。

Args: query: 搜索关键词。 max_results: 返回结果数量，1-20。 provider: 临时覆盖配置的搜索后端，可选 duckduckgo、tavily、bing、searxng；留空使用配置值。

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
`query`	Yes
`provider`	No
`max_results`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned fields and that the provider can be temporarily overridden (empty = configured default). It says nothing about rate limits, network failure behavior, fallback when a backend is unavailable, or latency.

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?

The one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is dense with no filler. Slightly mechanical docstring formatting, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and all three parameters are documented. The remaining gap is guidance on choosing this over web_fetch/kb_search and on failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema has no enums or ranges, yet the description supplies the 1-20 bound for max_results and the full provider enum (duckduckgo、tavily、bing、searxng) plus the meaning of an empty value. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ('搜索网页') and discloses the return shape (标题、链接与摘要), which implicitly separates it from web_fetch (URL retrieval) and kb_search. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'search'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over web_fetch, kb_search, or github_search_code. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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