Skip to main content
Glama
arben-adm

Brave Search MCP Server

by arben-adm
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is for local business/place searches and the other is for general web searches. The descriptions explicitly differentiate their domains (local vs. web), making it impossible to confuse them. Each tool serves a unique function within the search domain.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a perfectly consistent naming pattern: 'brave_' prefix followed by descriptive snake_case (local_search, web_search). The naming convention is uniform across all tools, making them predictable and easy to understand. There are no deviations or mixed styles.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels somewhat thin for a search domain that could benefit from more specialized operations (e.g., image search, news search, autocomplete). While the two core search functions are covered, the limited tool count may restrict agent capabilities for broader search-related tasks. It's borderline minimal but functional.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the essential search operations (local and web) well, but there are minor gaps in the search surface. For instance, no tools for image search, news search, or search suggestions/autocomplete are included, which are common in search APIs. However, the core workflows are adequately supported, and agents can work around these omissions.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data sources, or what happens when no results are found. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

    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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The formatting with 'Args:' section is helpful, though the incomplete 'Results (1-20' text suggests a typographical error that slightly detracts from professionalism.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, result format, error conditions, or how this differs from the sibling web search tool, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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

    Parameters2/5

    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. It provides basic explanations for both parameters ('Location terms' for query, 'Results (1-20' for count), but these are minimal and don't explain format expectations, what constitutes valid 'Location terms', or how the count parameter works with the default value of 20.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    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 'Search for local businesses and places' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'brave_web_search' which likely searches the broader web rather than local businesses.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 its sibling 'brave_web_search' or any alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this local search functionality.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 'improved results' but doesn't explain what this means (e.g., better ranking, additional metadata). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of search results). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, with the second sentence dedicated to parameter details. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with indentation and quotes might slightly affect readability in some contexts.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity (a web search tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what 'improved results' include), error conditions, or usage constraints. For a tool that interacts with an external API, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent invocation.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'query' as 'Search terms' and 'count' as 'Desired number of results (10-20)'. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema's titles ('Query' and 'Count'). However, it doesn't provide deeper context like query syntax examples or why count has a range, leaving room for improvement.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute web search using Brave Search API with improved results.' It specifies the verb ('Execute web search') and resource ('Brave Search API'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'brave_local_search' (e.g., by mentioning this is for general web searches vs. local searches), 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.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 the sibling tool 'brave_local_search' or any other potential alternatives, nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. The only implied usage is for web searches, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

    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

brave-mcp-search MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

brave-mcp-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/arben-adm/brave-mcp-search'

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