MCP SearxNG Search
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'searxng_search' has a clear, distinct purpose for web searching.
Naming Consistency5/5The single tool name 'searxng_search' follows a consistent pattern (noun_verb style), and with only one tool, there is no inconsistency to evaluate. The naming is straightforward and descriptive.
Tool Count2/5A single tool for a search server is too minimal for effective agent use. While it covers the core search function, it lacks supporting tools (e.g., for filtering, advanced queries, or handling different search types), making the scope feel thin and incomplete for a typical search domain.
Completeness2/5The tool surface is severely incomplete for a search server. It only provides basic search functionality without any tools for related operations like image search, news search, autocomplete, or result management, leading to significant gaps that will limit agent capabilities.
Average 3.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under GPL 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.jsonto 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns a list of results' and 'returns an error message in a dictionary if the search fails,' which adds some context about success and failure behaviors. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or other operational traits, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool that interacts with external services.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values, and the output schema likely details the result structure, reducing the need for extensive return explanations. However, it could improve by addressing potential errors or usage constraints more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains that 'query' is 'The search query' and 'max_results' is 'The maximum number of results to return. Defaults to 30.' This clarifies the purpose and default value, compensating well for the low schema coverage. However, it doesn't detail constraints like query length or result range limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Searches the web using a SearxNG instance and returns a list of results.' It specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('the web'), and mechanism ('using a SearxNG instance'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through its purpose statement but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With no sibling tools provided, there's no need to distinguish from them, but it doesn't offer any context on prerequisites, limitations, or best practices. This results in an implied usage scenario without detailed exclusions or recommendations.
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
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
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/Jay4242/mcp_searxng_search'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server