mcp-ddgs

ddgs_text_search

Perform web text searches via DuckDuckGo, retrieving titles, URLs, and snippets for each result. No API key needed.

Instructions

Recherche web texte via DuckDuckGo. Retourne titre, URL et extrait pour chaque résultat.

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": "ddgs_text_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	La requête de recherche (ex: 'Python MCP protocol')
`max_results`	No	Nombre maximum de résultats (défaut: 10, max: 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation and describes the return format, implying a read-only action. However, it does not mention rate limits, failure modes, or any other caveats that could affect an agent's expectations.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose and output. Every word is useful, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (title, URL, snippet). It is complete for most practical purposes, though it could optionally mention result limits or error behavior, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description focuses on output rather than parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it adds no extra semantic meaning 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Recherche' (search), the resource (web text via DuckDuckGo), and the expected output (title, URL, snippet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddgs_news_search and ddgs_image_search by explicitly stating 'texte'.

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 indicates this is for web text search, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide enough context to differentiate use cases.

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

Deploy Server