DuckDuckGo MCP Server
Servidor MCP ddg-mcp
API de búsqueda de DuckDuckGo MCP: un servidor que proporciona capacidades de búsqueda de DuckDuckGo a través del Protocolo de contexto de modelo.
Componentes
Indicaciones
El servidor proporciona las siguientes indicaciones:
search-results-summary : Crea un resumen de los resultados de búsqueda de DuckDuckGo
Argumento de "consulta" obligatorio para el término de búsqueda
Argumento opcional "estilo" para controlar el nivel de detalle (breve/detallado)
Herramientas
El servidor implementa las siguientes herramientas de búsqueda de DuckDuckGo:
ddg-text-search : Busque resultados de texto en la web usando DuckDuckGo
Obligatorio: "palabras clave" - Palabras clave de la consulta de búsqueda
Opcional: "región", "búsqueda segura", "límite de tiempo", "resultados máximos"
ddg-image-search : Busca imágenes en la web con DuckDuckGo
Obligatorio: "palabras clave" - Palabras clave de la consulta de búsqueda
Opcional: "región", "búsqueda segura", "límite de tiempo", "tamaño", "color", "tipo_de_imagen", "diseño", "imagen_de_licencia", "resultados_máximos"
ddg-news-search : Busca noticias con DuckDuckGo
Obligatorio: "palabras clave" - Palabras clave de la consulta de búsqueda
Opcional: "región", "búsqueda segura", "límite de tiempo", "resultados máximos"
ddg-video-search : Busca vídeos con DuckDuckGo
Obligatorio: "palabras clave" - Palabras clave de la consulta de búsqueda
Opcional: "región", "búsqueda segura", "límite de tiempo", "resolución", "duración", "licencia_videos", "máx_resultados"
ddg-ai-chat : Chatea con la IA de DuckDuckGo
Obligatorio: "palabras clave" - Mensaje o pregunta para enviar a la IA
Opcional: "modelo": modelo de IA a utilizar (opciones: "gpt-4o-mini", "llama-3.3-70b", "claude-3-haiku", "o3-mini", "mistral-small-3")
Related MCP server: DuckDuckGo MCP Server
Instalación
Prerrequisitos
Python 3.9 o superior
uv (recomendado) o pip
Instalar desde PyPI
# Using uv
uv install ddg-mcp
# Using pip
pip install ddg-mcpInstalar desde la fuente
Clonar el repositorio:
git clone https://github.com/misanthropic-ai/ddg-mcp.git
cd ddg-mcpInstalar el paquete:
# Using uv
uv install -e .
# Using pip
pip install -e .Configuración
Dependencias requeridas
El servidor requiere el paquete duckduckgo-search , que se instalará automáticamente cuando instale ddg-mcp .
Si necesita instalarlo manualmente:
uv install duckduckgo-search
# or
pip install duckduckgo-searchParámetros de búsqueda de DuckDuckGo
Parámetros comunes
Estos parámetros están disponibles para la mayoría de los tipos de búsqueda:
región : código de región para resultados localizados (predeterminado: "wt-wt")
Ejemplos: "us-en" (inglés estadounidense), "uk-en" (inglés británico), "ru-ru" (ruso)
Consulte las regiones de DuckDuckGo para obtener más opciones
safesearch : Nivel de filtrado de contenido (predeterminado: "moderado")
"on": Filtrado estricto
"moderado": Filtrado moderado
"off": Sin filtrado
límite de tiempo : rango de tiempo para los resultados
"d": Último día
"w": La semana pasada
"m": El mes pasado
"y": El año pasado (no disponible para noticias/vídeos)
max_results : Número máximo de resultados a devolver (predeterminado: 10)
Operadores de búsqueda
Puede utilizar estos operadores en sus palabras clave de búsqueda:
cats dogs: Resultados sobre gatos o perros"cats and dogs": Resultados para el término exacto "Gatos y perros"cats -dogs: Menos perros en los resultadoscats +dogs: Más perros en los resultadoscats filetype:pdf: PDF sobre gatos (compatibles: pdf, doc(x), xls(x), ppt(x), html)dogs site:example.com: Páginas sobre perros de ejemplo.comcats -site:example.com: Páginas sobre gatos, excluyendo example.comintitle:dogs: El título de la página incluye la palabra "perros"inurl:cats: La URL de la página incluye la palabra "cats"
Parámetros específicos de búsqueda de imágenes
Tamaño : "Pequeño", "Mediano", "Grande", "Fondo de pantalla"
Color : "color", "monocromo", "rojo", "naranja", "amarillo", "verde", "azul", "morado", "rosa", "marrón", "negro", "gris", "verde azulado", "blanco"
tipo_imagen : "foto", "clipart", "gif", "transparente", "línea"
Disposición : "Cuadrado", "Alto", "Ancho"
license_image : "cualquiera", "Público", "Compartir", "CompartirComercialmente", "Modificar", "ModificarComercialmente"
Parámetros específicos de búsqueda de vídeo
resolución : "alta", "estándar"
duración : "corta", "media", "larga"
licencia_videos : "creativeCommon", "youtube"
Modelos de chat de IA
gpt-4o-mini : modelo mini GPT-4o de OpenAI
llama-3.3-70b : modelo Llama 3.3 70B de Meta
claude-3-haiku : Modelo de Haiku Claude 3 de Anthropic
o3-mini : modelo mini O3 de OpenAI
mistral-small-3 : El modelo pequeño de Mistral AI
Inicio rápido
Instalar
Escritorio de Claude
En MacOS: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json En Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Ejemplos de uso
Búsqueda de texto
Use the ddg-text-search tool to search for "climate change solutions"Ejemplo avanzado:
Use the ddg-text-search tool to search for "renewable energy filetype:pdf site:edu" with region "us-en", safesearch "off", timelimit "y", and max_results 20Búsqueda de imágenes
Use the ddg-image-search tool to find images of "renewable energy" with color set to "Green"Ejemplo avanzado:
Use the ddg-image-search tool to find images of "mountain landscape" with size "Large", color "Blue", type_image "photo", layout "Wide", and license_image "Public"Búsqueda de noticias
Use the ddg-news-search tool to find recent news about "artificial intelligence" from the last dayEjemplo avanzado:
Use the ddg-news-search tool to search for "space exploration" with region "uk-en", timelimit "w", and max_results 15Búsqueda de vídeos
Use the ddg-video-search tool to find videos about "machine learning tutorials" with duration set to "medium"Ejemplo avanzado:
Use the ddg-video-search tool to search for "cooking recipes" with resolution "high", duration "short", license_videos "creativeCommon", and max_results 10Chat de IA
Use the ddg-ai-chat tool to ask "What are the latest developments in quantum computing?" using the claude-3-haiku modelResumen de resultados de búsqueda
Use the search-results-summary prompt with query "space exploration" and style "detailed"Configuración de Claude
"ddg-mcp": { "comando": "uv", "argumentos": [ "--directorio", "/RUTA/A/SU/INSTALACIÓN/ddg-mcp", "ejecutar", "ddg-mcp" ] },
Desarrollo
Construcción y publicación
Para preparar el paquete para su distribución:
Sincronizar dependencias y actualizar archivo de bloqueo:
uv syncDistribuciones de paquetes de compilación:
uv buildEsto creará distribuciones de origen y de rueda en el directorio dist/ .
Publicar en PyPI:
uv publishNota: Deberás configurar las credenciales de PyPI a través de variables de entorno o indicadores de comando:
Token:
--tokenoUV_PUBLISH_TOKENO nombre de usuario/contraseña:
--username/UV_PUBLISH_USERNAMEy--password/UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD
Publicación automatizada con acciones de GitHub
Este repositorio incluye un flujo de trabajo de GitHub Actions para la publicación automatizada en PyPI. El flujo de trabajo se activa cuando:
Se crea una nueva versión de GitHub
El flujo de trabajo se activa manualmente a través de la interfaz de Acciones de GitHub
Para configurar la publicación automatizada:
Generar un token de API de PyPI:
Cree un nuevo token con alcance limitado al proyecto
ddg-mcpCopia el valor del token (solo lo verás una vez)
Agrega el token a los secretos de tu repositorio de GitHub:
Vaya a su repositorio en GitHub
Vaya a Configuración > Secretos y variables > Acciones
Haga clic en "Nuevo secreto del repositorio".
Nombre:
PYPI_API_TOKENValor: Pegue su token PyPI
Haga clic en "Agregar secreto"
Para publicar una nueva versión:
Actualice el número de versión en
pyproject.tomlCree una nueva versión en GitHub o active manualmente el flujo de trabajo
Depuración
Dado que los servidores MCP se ejecutan en stdio, la depuración puede ser complicada. Para una experiencia óptima, recomendamos usar el Inspector MCP .
Puede iniciar el Inspector MCP a través de npm con este comando:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /path/to/your/ddg-mcp run ddg-mcpAl iniciarse, el Inspector mostrará una URL a la que podrá acceder en su navegador para comenzar a depurar.
Available Tools
5 toolsddg-ai-chatC
Chat with DuckDuckGo AI
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Message or question to send to the AI | |
| model | No | AI model to use | gpt-4o-mini |
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 but offers almost none. 'Chat with DuckDuckGo AI' doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what rate limits apply, whether conversations are persistent, or what the typical response format looks like. For a chat tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Chat with DuckDuckGo AI') and every word earns its place. This is a model of efficiency in tool description writing.
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 that this is a chat tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of responses to expect, whether there are conversation contexts, what the AI's capabilities or limitations are, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably involves AI interaction, more context about the nature of the chat would be expected.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (keywords for the message, model selection from specific AI models). This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter usage or constraints.
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 'Chat with DuckDuckGo AI' clearly states the verb ('Chat') and resource ('DuckDuckGo AI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (image-search, news-search, text-search, video-search) by specifying it's for AI chat rather than search operations. However, it doesn't specify what kind of chat (e.g., conversational, Q&A) or the scope of the AI's capabilities.
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 tools. It doesn't mention that this is for AI-powered conversations rather than traditional search operations, nor does it suggest alternatives like using text-search for factual queries. There's no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ddg-image-searchC
Search the web for images using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month, y=year) | |
| size | No | Image size | |
| color | No | Image color | |
| type_image | No | Image type | |
| layout | No | Image layout | |
| license_image | No | Image license type | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
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 states the action ('Search') but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., image URLs, metadata, pagination), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the service and resource type.
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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral traits like rate limits or errors, or usage context relative to siblings. For a search tool with rich parameters but no structured output or annotations, more descriptive context is needed to guide effective use.
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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 action ('Search') and resource ('the web for images') with the specific service ('using DuckDuckGo'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'images' versus text, news, video, or AI chat searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the resource type.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest scenarios where image search is preferable over text, news, video, or AI chat searches. Usage is implied by the resource type but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ddg-news-searchC
Search for news articles using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
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 states the tool searches for news articles but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with external dependencies, 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 extremely concise—a single sentence—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more detail is needed.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical examples, so it doesn't enhance the schema's documentation.
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: 'Search for news articles using DuckDuckGo'. It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('news articles'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddg-image-search and ddg-video-search by focusing on news. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ddg-text-search, which might also return news results, keeping it from 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 sibling tools like ddg-text-search or ddg-ai-chat, nor does it specify scenarios where news search is preferred over general text search or other media types. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ddg-text-searchC
Search the web for text results using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month, y=year) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
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 states the tool performs a web search but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential side effects. For a search 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 search with 5 parameters) and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand the tool fully.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples, so it doesn't add value beyond the schema.
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 action ('Search the web for text results') and the resource ('using DuckDuckGo'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like ddg-image-search or ddg-news-search, though the 'text results' wording implies a distinction from those other search types.
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 siblings (ddg-ai-chat, ddg-image-search, ddg-news-search, ddg-video-search). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ddg-video-searchC
Search for videos using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month) | |
| resolution | No | Video resolution | |
| duration | No | Video duration | |
| license_videos | No | Video license type | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
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 but only states the basic action ('Search for videos'). It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of video metadata). For a search tool with 8 parameters, 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Search for videos using DuckDuckGo'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 moderate complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, result format), usage guidance relative to siblings, and any mention of output structure, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'keywords' as search query, 'region' with examples, enums for filters). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 videos using DuckDuckGo', which includes a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('videos') with the search engine specified. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ddg-image-search or ddg-text-search beyond the 'videos' keyword, which is why it doesn't reach 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 ddg-image-search or ddg-text-search. There's no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for 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.
5 tool updates
- First observed
ddg-ai-chat - First observed
ddg-image-search - First observed
ddg-news-search - First observed
ddg-text-search - First observed
ddg-video-search
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose based on media type: chat, images, news, text, and videos. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool for each search need.
All tools follow a consistent 'ddg-[media_type]-search' pattern, with the exception of 'ddg-ai-chat' which still fits the 'ddg-[function]' convention. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
Five tools is well-scoped for a DuckDuckGo search server, covering key search types (text, image, video, news) plus an AI chat feature. Each tool earns its place without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The tool set covers major search categories effectively, but there is a minor gap in specialized searches like maps or shopping, which are common in search engines. However, core workflows are well-supported, and agents can work around this limitation.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for Firecrawl — web search, scraping, and biomedical/arXiv paper search.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides web search capabilities through DuckDuckGo, with additional features for content fetching and parsing.315,517 PyPI1,510MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides DuckDuckGo search functionality for Claude, enabling web search capabilities through a clean tool interface with rate limiting support.11,589 npm87MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI applications like Claude Desktop and Cursor IDE to perform web searches via DuckDuckGo's search engine.-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that exposes DuckDuckGo web and image search to MCP clients.2ISC