agent-web-search
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.7.5
- Disambiguation5/5
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as web search.
Naming Consistency5/5The single tool name 'web_search' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. With only one tool, there are no inconsistencies to evaluate.
Tool Count3/5The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a typical toolset. However, the server is narrowly scoped to web search, so the single tool is reasonable, though borderline.
Completeness5/5The web search tool covers the full domain by supporting multiple providers, natural-language queries, and graceful failure diagnostics. No obvious missing operations for a web-search-only server.
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 82 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 MIT License.
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.
This server has been verified by its author.
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
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals that failed providers are omitted from successful responses and that total failure surfaces a specific error code all_providers_failed with per-provider diagnostics. It doesn't cover output shape or rate limits, but core operational behavior is disclosed.
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?
Four short sentences, each carrying unique information: purpose, provider list, query format, and failure semantics. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
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?
The description covers purpose, query format, providers, and failure behavior, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema means the return format is not described, but this is a minor gap for a general search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the input schema. The description adds a little by naming the providers and re-emphasizing the natural-language query style, but it doesn't materially enrich the meaning of time_range or max_results beyond their schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb+resource: 'Search the web through multiple providers,' and enumerates the exact providers (DuckDuckGo, Exa, Parallel). Although there are no sibling tools, the description fully establishes what the tool does and its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear usage context—use a complete natural-language question—and explains provider/error behavior, so an agent knows how to frame calls. No sibling tools exist to contrast with, and no explicit when-not-to-use exclusion is provided, so it stops short of a 5.
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: