Brave Search MCP Server
Brave Search MCP サーバー
このプロジェクトは、Brave Search 用の Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバーを実装し、Claude などの AI アシスタントとの統合を可能にします。
前提条件
Python 3.11以上
uv - 高速なPythonパッケージインストーラーとリゾルバー
Related MCP server: Brave Search MCP Server
インストール
Smithery経由でインストール
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の Brave Search MCP サーバーを自動的にインストールするには:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @arben-adm/brave-mcp-search --client claude手動インストール
リポジトリをクローンします。
git clone https://github.com/your-username/brave-search-mcp.git cd brave-search-mcp仮想環境を作成し、uv を使用して依存関係をインストールします。
uv venv source .venv/bin/activate # On Windows, use: .venv\Scripts\activate uv pip install -r requirements.txtBrave Search API キーを設定します。
export BRAVE_API_KEY=your_api_key_hereWindowsでは、
set BRAVE_API_KEY=your_api_key_hereを使用します。
使用法
MCP 設定ファイル (例:
claude_desktop_config.json) を構成して、Brave Search MCP サーバーを含めます。{ "mcpServers": { "brave-search": { "command": "uv", "args": [ "--directory", "path-to\\mcp-python\\brave-mcp-search\\src", "run", "server.py" ], "env": { "BRAVE_API_KEY": "YOUR_BRAVE_API_KEY_HERE" } } } }YOUR_BRAVE_API_KEY_HEREを実際の Brave API キーに置き換えます。更新された構成で MCP 互換の AI アシスタントを実行して、Brave Search MCP サーバーを起動します。
サーバーは実行され、MCP クライアントからの要求を受け入れる準備が整いました。
利用可能なツールを呼び出すことで、MCP 対応の AI アシスタント (Claude など) で Brave Search 機能を使用できるようになりました。
利用可能なツール
サーバーは主に 2 つのツールを提供します。
brave_web_search: Brave Search API を使用して Web 検索を実行します。brave_local_search: 地元の企業や場所を検索します。
詳細な使用方法については、 src/server.pyのツールのドキュメント文字列を参照してください。
発達
プロジェクトに変更を加えるには:
必要に応じて
srcディレクトリ内のコードを変更します。依存関係を追加または削除する場合は、
requirements.txtファイルを更新します。uv pip freeze > requirements.txt変更を適用するにはサーバーを再起動します。
トラブルシューティング
問題が発生した場合:
Brave API キーが正しく設定されていることを確認してください。
すべての依存関係がインストールされていることを確認します。
互換性のある Python バージョンを使用していることを確認してください。
コードを変更した場合は、必ずサーバーを再起動してください。
ライセンス
このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています - 詳細についてはLICENSEファイルを参照してください。
Available Tools
2 toolsbrave_local_searchC
Search for local businesses and places
Args:
query: Location terms
count: Results (1-20
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| count | No |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
brave_web_searchC
Execute web search using Brave Search API with improved results
Args:
query: Search terms
count: Desired number of results (10-20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| count | No |
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 '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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
brave_local_search - First observed
brave_web_search
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Visit https://brave.com/search/api/ for a free API key. Search the web, local businesses, images,…
Provides AI assistants with access to Seltz's powerful Web Search capabilities.
Web search, browser automation, scraping, crawling and CAPTCHA solving for AI agents.
Brave Search MCP — independent web index (no Google/Bing dependency)
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides real-time web search capabilities to AI assistants through pluggable search providers, currently integrated with the Brave Search API.516MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceIntegrates Brave Search API to enable web, image, video, news, and local business searches with filtering options like result count and content freshness.399 npm-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceIntegrates the Brave Search API to provide web and local search capabilities, including news, articles, and business information. It features smart fallbacks from local to web search and supports pagination and freshness controls.399 npm1GPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceIntegrates the Brave Search API into AI assistants to enable web and local business search capabilities. This allows models to perform real-time information retrieval and locate places using the Model Context Protocol.1MIT