Skip to main content
Glama
alchaincyf

doubao-search-mcp

by alchaincyf
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or ambiguous selection.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained.

    Tool Count4/5

    One tool for a search server is slightly below the typical range but acceptable for a focused, single-purpose service.

    Completeness5/5

    The single tool provides comprehensive web search with detailed results, covering the server's intended purpose without obvious gaps.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 10 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 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.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns publish timestamps, traceable source URLs, long-form text snippets, supports Chinese and English queries. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or destructive operations, but those are less critical for a read-only search tool. Overall, transparency is good.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is moderately sized and front-loaded: it states the tool's identity and key features first, then details sources and usage. Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy. Minor improvement could be trimming the bullet-like listing, but overall efficient.

    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?

    Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (results with timestamps, source URLs, long-form text). It covers the main aspects a user needs to know. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling, which would be nice but not critical for a search tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema: for 'query', it notes natural language works well; for 'snippet_length', it suggests raising for deep reading; for 'images', it mentions CDN URLs. This contextual information aids parameter selection.

    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 states it is a web search API via Doubao Search, listing specific exclusive ByteDance sources (Toutiao, Douyin Baike) and strengths like cross-language support and fresh results. It also enumerates use cases such as fact-checking and research on Chinese topics, making the purpose unambiguous and actionable.

    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 explicitly lists appropriate use cases (fact-checking, recent news, Chinese internet topics, entity lookups) and highlights when the tool excels (Chinese content, fresh results). Although no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given (and no siblings are defined), the context provided is sufficient for typical decision-making.

    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

huashu-doubao-search MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

huashu-doubao-search MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/alchaincyf/huashu-doubao-search'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server