Fetch web results with URLs, titles, and snippets via DuckDuckGo without API keys. Bypasses bot detection automatically for reliable query responses.
Web search via DuckDuckGo HTML (no API key required).
Returns [{url, title, snippet}, ...]. The smart ladder bypasses DDG's bot detection if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| prefer | No | auto |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does 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 goes beyond a simple action by explaining the return shape, the underlying DuckDuckGo HTML source, and the 'smart ladder' workaround for bot detection. It could mention rate limits or failure modes, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.
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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool does, and the second describes output format and a key behavioral detail. 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for making a basic call with just the required 'query' parameter, and the output schema supplements return-value understanding. However, it lacks usage routing and meaningful parameter documentation, especially for 'prefer', leaving some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain 'prefer' at all, and 'limit' is only inferable from its name and default value. The query parameter is implied by 'Web search', but the description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 a specific action and resource: 'Web search via DuckDuckGo HTML'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_papers and deep_research, and the mention of 'no API key required' adds a concrete implementation detail that clarifies the tool's identity.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deep_research, search_papers, or scrape. 'No API key required' hints at a use case, but the description does not state when a user should choose this search tool over a sibling or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.