Skip to main content
Glama
bakshidwarak

Tavily Web Search MCP Server

by bakshidwarak
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The three tools have completely distinct purposes: rolling dice, searching the web, and a placeholder tool. There is no overlap in functionality, and each tool's purpose is clearly differentiated from the others.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent: 'roll_dice' uses snake_case with a verb-noun pattern, 'web_search' uses snake_case with a noun-verb pattern, and 'YOUR_TOOL_NAME' is a placeholder with a different style. There is no predictable convention across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, including a placeholder ('YOUR_TOOL_NAME'), the set feels incomplete for a web search server. The scope is unclear, and the tools do not adequately cover typical web search operations beyond a basic search function.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a web search server. There is only one functional tool ('web_search'), with a dice-rolling tool and a placeholder that do not contribute to the domain. Missing are tools for advanced search, result filtering, or other related operations.

  • Average 2.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.

    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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'YOUR_TOOL_DESCRIPTION' gives no information about what the tool does, its effects (e.g., read/write, side effects), permissions, or limitations. It fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The description is a single placeholder phrase 'YOUR_TOOL_DESCRIPTION', which is technically concise but represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. It lacks any structured information to guide the agent.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Given the tool has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about functionality, parameters, or behavior, failing to meet even minimal requirements for a tool with this complexity.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter 'query' undocumented in the schema. The description 'YOUR_TOOL_DESCRIPTION' adds no meaning about the parameter's purpose, format, or usage, leaving it completely unexplained.

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

    Purpose1/5

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

    The description 'YOUR_TOOL_DESCRIPTION' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'YOUR_TOOL_NAME' without specifying any actual functionality. It provides no verb, resource, or action, failing to distinguish from siblings like 'roll_dice' or 'web_search'.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to decide between this tool and its siblings like 'roll_dice' or 'web_search'.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Roll the dice') but doesn't explain key traits like whether this is deterministic or random, if it requires external resources, what the output format is, or any error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential randomness and no output schema.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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 dice-rolling tool with randomness), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavior, parameter details, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

    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 mentions 'notation' but doesn't define what that means (e.g., dice notation like '2d6'), and it ignores 'num_rolls' entirely. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings or usage.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the action ('Roll the dice') and references the input parameter ('with the given notation'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'notation' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'web_search' or 'YOUR_TOOL_NAME', which might also involve user input processing. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.

    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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'web_search' for information retrieval or 'YOUR_TOOL_NAME' for other tasks. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

    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 states the tool searches the web but doesn't add context like rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or potential side effects (e.g., network calls). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

    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 tool's complexity (a web search with potential behavioral nuances), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or operational details, 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.

    Parameters3/5

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

    The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies the 'query' parameter is used for searching, but doesn't elaborate on syntax, constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides some context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of detailed parameter documentation.

    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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), and it specifies the action is for information about a query. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'roll_dice' or 'YOUR_TOOL_NAME', which have unrelated purposes, so it's not fully distinct in context.

    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 any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, such as when web search is appropriate compared to other tools or methods, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

    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

AIE8-MCP-Session MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

AIE8-MCP-Session 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/bakshidwarak/AIE8-MCP-Session'

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