Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

duckduckgo_image

Search DuckDuckGo image results for a query and return titles, source URLs, image and thumbnail URLs, dimensions, hostnames, and page-based pagination.

Instructions

Search DuckDuckGo image results. Returns DuckDuckGo image results for a query string: title, source page URL, image URL, thumbnail, dimensions, and hostname, plus page-based pagination.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query
pageNo1-based page number, defaults to 1
regionNoDuckDuckGo region/locale code, e.g. us-en, uk-en, wt-wt (worldwide, the default)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does cover the return shape (title, source URL, image URL, thumbnail, dimensions, hostname) and page-based pagination. It stays silent on pagination depth limits, rate limiting, or the fact that this is a purely read-only operation, so it only partially compensates for the missing annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return payload. The framing is efficient, though 'Search DuckDuckGo image results' and 'Returns DuckDuckGo image results' are mildly redundant.

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?

For a simple three-parameter search tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is genuinely useful and largely covers what the agent needs to consume results. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks context on when this tool is the right choice and how far pagination can be pushed.

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 the schema already documents q, page, and region with examples. The description only alludes to 'a query string' and 'page-based pagination' and never mentions the region/locale parameter, so it adds essentially nothing over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search DuckDuckGo image results'), which clearly separates it from the sibling text/video/news/shopping variants of the same provider. It does not, however, distinguish itself from competing image endpoints like bing_images, brave_images, or yahoo_search_images, so an agent choosing an image source gets no help from the wording.

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?

The description describes the output but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It never says when an image search is appropriate versus duckduckgo_search, duckduckgo_video, or bing_images, leaving the routing decision entirely to the agent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools