MCP Deep Web Research Server
Servidor de investigación web profunda MCP (v0.3.0)
Un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto Modelo (MCP) para investigación web avanzada.
Últimos cambios
Se agregó la herramienta visit_page para la extracción directa de contenido de la página web
Rendimiento optimizado para trabajar dentro de los límites de tiempo de espera de MCP
Parámetros maxDepth y maxBranching predeterminados reducidos
Eficiencia de carga de páginas mejorada
Se agregaron controles de tiempo de espera durante todo el proceso.
Manejo mejorado de errores en tiempos de espera
Este proyecto es una bifurcación de mcp-webresearch de mzxrai , mejorada con funciones adicionales para la investigación en la web profunda. Agradecemos a los creadores originales su labor fundacional.
Incorpore información en tiempo real a Claude con colas de búsqueda inteligentes, extracción de contenido mejorada y capacidades de investigación profunda.
Related MCP server: MCP Web Research Server
Características
Sistema de cola de búsqueda inteligente
Operaciones de búsqueda por lotes con limitación de velocidad
Gestión de colas con seguimiento del progreso
Recuperación de errores y reintentos automáticos
Desduplicación de resultados de búsqueda
Extracción de contenido mejorada
Puntuación de relevancia basada en TF-IDF
Análisis de proximidad de palabras clave
Ponderación de la sección de contenido
Puntuación de legibilidad
Análisis mejorado de la estructura HTML
Extracción de datos estructurados
Mejor limpieza y formato de contenido
Características principales
Integración de búsqueda de Google
Extracción de contenido de páginas web
Seguimiento de sesiones de investigación
Conversión de Markdown con formato mejorado
Prerrequisitos
Node.js >= 18 (incluye
npmynpx)
Instalación
Instalación mediante herrería
Para instalar Deep Web Research Server para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @PedroDnT/mcp-deepwebresearch --client claudeInstalación global (recomendada)
# Install globally using npm
npm install -g mcp-deepwebresearch
# Or using yarn
yarn global add mcp-deepwebresearch
# Or using pnpm
pnpm add -g mcp-deepwebresearchInstalación de proyecto local
# Using npm
npm install mcp-deepwebresearch
# Using yarn
yarn add mcp-deepwebresearch
# Using pnpm
pnpm add mcp-deepwebresearchIntegración de escritorio de Claude
Después de instalar el paquete, agregue esta entrada a su claude_desktop_config.json :
Ventanas
{
"mcpServers": {
"deepwebresearch": {
"command": "mcp-deepwebresearch",
"args": []
}
}
}Ubicación: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
macOS
{
"mcpServers": {
"deepwebresearch": {
"command": "mcp-deepwebresearch",
"args": []
}
}
}Ubicación: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Esta configuración permite que Claude Desktop inicie automáticamente el servidor de investigación web MCP cuando sea necesario.
Configuración por primera vez
Después de la instalación, ejecute este comando para instalar las dependencias necesarias del navegador:
npx playwright install chromiumUso
Simplemente inicia un chat con Claude y envía una propuesta que se beneficie de una investigación web. Si deseas una propuesta prediseñada y personalizada para una investigación web más profunda, puedes usar la propuesta agentic-research que ofrecemos en este paquete. Accede a esa propuesta en Claude Desktop haciendo clic en el icono del clip en la entrada del chat y seleccionando " Choose an integration → deepwebresearch → agentic-research .
Herramientas
deep_researchRealiza una investigación exhaustiva con análisis de contenido.
Argumentos:
{ topic: string; maxDepth?: number; // default: 2 maxBranching?: number; // default: 3 timeout?: number; // default: 55000 (55 seconds) minRelevanceScore?: number; // default: 0.7 }Devoluciones:
{ findings: { mainTopics: Array<{name: string, importance: number}>; keyInsights: Array<{text: string, confidence: number}>; sources: Array<{url: string, credibilityScore: number}>; }; progress: { completedSteps: number; totalSteps: number; processedUrls: number; }; timing: { started: string; completed?: string; duration?: number; operations?: { parallelSearch?: number; deduplication?: number; topResultsProcessing?: number; remainingResultsProcessing?: number; total?: number; }; }; }
parallel_searchRealiza múltiples búsquedas de Google en paralelo con cola inteligente
Argumentos:
{ queries: string[], maxParallel?: number }Nota: maxParallel está limitado a 5 para garantizar un rendimiento confiable
visit_pageVisita una página web y extrae su contenido
Argumentos:
{ url: string }Devoluciones:
{ url: string; title: string; content: string; // Markdown formatted content }
Indicaciones
agentic-research
Una guía de investigación que ayuda a Claude a realizar una investigación web exhaustiva. La guía le indica a Claude que:
Comience con búsquedas amplias para comprender el panorama temático.
Priorizar fuentes confiables y de alta calidad
Refinar iterativamente la dirección de la investigación en función de los hallazgos
Manténgase informado y permítanos guiar la investigación de forma interactiva.
Cite siempre las fuentes con URL
Opciones de configuración
El servidor se puede configurar a través de variables de entorno:
MAX_PARALLEL_SEARCHES: Número máximo de búsquedas simultáneas (predeterminado: 5)SEARCH_DELAY_MS: Retraso entre búsquedas en milisegundos (valor predeterminado: 200)MAX_RETRIES: Número de reintentos para solicitudes fallidas (valor predeterminado: 3)TIMEOUT_MS: Tiempo de espera de la solicitud en milisegundos (valor predeterminado: 55000)LOG_LEVEL: Nivel de registro (predeterminado: 'info')
Manejo de errores
Problemas comunes
Limitación de velocidad
Síntoma: Error "Demasiadas solicitudes"
Solución: Aumente
SEARCH_DELAY_MSo disminuyaMAX_PARALLEL_SEARCHES
Tiempos de espera de la red
Síntoma: Error "Tiempo de espera agotado"
Solución: Asegúrese de que las solicitudes se completen dentro del tiempo de espera de MCP de 60 segundos
Problemas con el navegador
Síntoma: Error "No se pudo iniciar el navegador"
Solución: asegúrese de que Playwright esté instalado correctamente (
npx playwright install)
Depuración
Este software es beta. Si tiene algún problema:
Consulte los registros MCP de Claude Desktop:
# On macOS tail -n 20 -f ~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp*.log # On Windows Get-Content -Path "$env:APPDATA\Claude\logs\mcp*.log" -Tail 20 -WaitHabilitar el registro de depuración:
export LOG_LEVEL=debug
Desarrollo
Configuración
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build the project
pnpm build
# Watch for changes
pnpm watch
# Run in development mode
pnpm devPruebas
# Run all tests
pnpm test
# Run tests in watch mode
pnpm test:watch
# Run tests with coverage
pnpm test:coverageCalidad del código
# Run linter
pnpm lint
# Fix linting issues
pnpm lint:fix
# Type check
pnpm type-checkContribuyendo
Bifurcar el repositorio
Crea tu rama de funciones (
git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)Confirme sus cambios (
git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature')Empujar a la rama (
git push origin feature/amazing-feature)Abrir una solicitud de extracción
Estándares de codificación
Siga las mejores prácticas de TypeScript
Mantener la cobertura de pruebas por encima del 80%
Documentar nuevas funciones y API
Actualice CHANGELOG.md para cambios significativos
Seguir el versionado semántico
Consideraciones de rendimiento
Utilice operaciones por lotes siempre que sea posible
Implementar un manejo adecuado de errores y reintentos
Considere el uso de memoria con grandes conjuntos de datos
Almacenar en caché los resultados cuando sea apropiado
Utilice la transmisión para contenido de gran tamaño
Requisitos
Node.js >= 18
Dramaturgo (instalado automáticamente como dependencia)
Plataformas verificadas
[x] macOS
[x] Ventanas
[ ] Linux
Licencia
Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT)
Créditos
Este proyecto se basa en el excelente trabajo de mcp-webresearch de mzxrai . El código base original sentó las bases para nuestras funciones y capacidades mejoradas.
Autor
Available Tools
3 toolsdeep_researchC
Perform deep research on a topic with content extraction and analysis
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Research topic or question | |
| maxDepth | No | Maximum depth of related content exploration | |
| maxBranching | No | Maximum number of related paths to explore | |
| timeout | No | Research timeout in milliseconds | |
| minRelevanceScore | No | Minimum relevance score for including content |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'content extraction and analysis' but fails to detail critical aspects such as execution time, resource usage, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'deep research' tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'deep research' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate information for effective use in a broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond implying 'deep research' involves branching and depth. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter roles or interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Perform deep research on a topic with content extraction and analysis,' which specifies the verb (perform deep research) and resource (topic) with additional capabilities (content extraction and analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'parallel_search' or 'visit_page,' which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'parallel_search' or 'visit_page.' It lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
parallel_searchC
Perform multiple Google searches in parallel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Array of search queries to execute in parallel | |
| maxParallel | No | Maximum number of parallel searches |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'parallel' execution but doesn't explain what that entails operationally (e.g., concurrency limits, error handling, or performance implications). It also omits critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that performs parallel operations. It doesn't address key behavioral aspects like error handling, result format, or limitations of parallel execution, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool handles multiple queries simultaneously, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage nuances beyond what's already in the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('perform') and resource ('Google searches'), and specifies the parallel execution aspect. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deep_research' or 'visit_page', which might have overlapping search functionality but different approaches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deep_research' or 'visit_page'. It doesn't specify scenarios where parallel searching is preferred over sequential or deeper research methods, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
visit_pageC
Visit a webpage and extract its content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to visit |
TDQS
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 'visit a webpage and extract its content', which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'extract content' entails (e.g., HTML, text, metadata). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('visit a webpage') and purpose ('extract its content'), making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a web interaction tool with potential behavioral nuances) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'extract content' means in terms of output format, error cases, or limitations. For a tool that interacts with external webpages, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented as 'URL to visit'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on URL format constraints or extraction specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('visit') and resource ('webpage'), and specifies the action ('extract its content'). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'deep_research' or 'parallel_search', which might have overlapping functionality. The description is not tautological but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'deep_research' or 'parallel_search' that might be related. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
- First observed
deep_research - First observed
parallel_search - First observed
visit_page
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: deep_research focuses on comprehensive topic analysis, parallel_search handles multiple Google searches, and visit_page extracts content from specific webpages. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
The naming is mixed: deep_research and parallel_search use snake_case with descriptive names, while visit_page also uses snake_case but is more action-oriented. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, but the names are still readable and understandable.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Deep Web Research' scope, which might imply more comprehensive capabilities like data analysis or report generation. However, the tools cover core search and extraction tasks, so it's borderline but not severely lacking.
The tools cover basic web research tasks (searching, visiting, deep analysis), but there are notable gaps such as no tools for saving results, managing research sessions, or advanced data processing. Agents can work around this, but the surface is not fully comprehensive for deep web research.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Web research for agents: quality-scored Google search, webpage extraction, and deep research.
Live AI-native web search with citations. One tool for every MCP client. Flat per-request pricing.
Live SEO workflow tools for Claude Code, Codex, and AI agents.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityFmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for web research. Bring real-time info into Claude and easily research any topic.31,175 npm298MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceThe MCP Web Research Server enables real-time web research with Claude by integrating Google search, capturing webpage content and screenshots, and tracking research sessions.35 npm86MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables Claude to perform web research by integrating Google search, extracting webpage content, and capturing screenshots.31,175 npm20MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables Claude to perform web research by integrating Google search, extracting webpage content, and capturing screenshots in real-time.41,175 npm9MIT