Skip to main content
Glama
Bedolla

EnriWeb

by Bedolla
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one fetches content from a specific URL, the other performs web searches. There is no ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent web_verb_noun pattern (web_fetch, web_search), making naming predictable and clear.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is very minimal. While it covers the basic needs of fetching and searching, it lacks additional tools for more advanced web interactions, making it feel somewhat limited for its stated purpose.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers fetching content from URLs and searching the web, with some advanced features like cursor-based pagination and filtering. However, it misses operations like browsing, form submission, or API interactions, which are common in web-oriented servers.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic fallback, registry verification, and filtering capabilities, but lacks details on rate limits, caching, or potential delays. The statement 'details intentionally not exposed' reduces transparency.

    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 well-organized into sections (usage, features, notes), with concise sentences. No redundant information; each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

    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 has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description explains features and usage, but does not describe the return format (e.g., structure of search results). Given the complexity, this gap reduces completeness.

    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 coverage is 100%, with description coverage also 100%. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'Be specific for better results' for query, default for recency), but does not significantly enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description explicitly states 'Search the web via EnriProxy's multi-tier search service' and lists specific use cases (current info, tech solutions, fact-checking). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'web_fetch' which likely fetches a single page.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The 'When to use' section provides clear scenarios, and the 'Notes' give guidance on query specificity and recency filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'web_fetch' or state when not to use this tool.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details features like package registry detection, raw file fetch, robust handling of bot-protected sites, and automatic fallback. It also discloses limitations ('best-effort', 'details intentionally not exposed') and pagination behavior.

    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 concise and well-organized with clear sections: intro, when to use, features, and notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

    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?

    Although there is no output schema, the description explains pagination via cursor, truncation behavior, and mentions content limits. It covers the main operational aspects, though it does not detail the exact format of returned content.

    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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'max_chars' default and explains cursor usage for pagination, but most parameters are already well-documented in the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description explicitly states 'Fetch and read content from a URL,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'web_search' by focusing on fetching full content versus searching.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description includes a 'When to use' section that clearly indicates appropriate scenarios (reading full webpages, documentation, code files) and even mentions when simpler methods fail. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like web_search, but it provides a clear context.

    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

EnriWeb MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

EnriWeb 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/Bedolla/EnriWeb'

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