GeminiGoogleSearchSearch Google for a query and return web results, serving as a collision-safe alias for GoogleSearch in IDEs that already use that tool name.
Alias to GoogleSearch to avoid tool name collisions in some IDEs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| model | No | gemini-2.5-pro | |
| query | Yes | ||
| cse_id | No | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| timeout_s | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that this is a duplicate of GoogleSearch; it says nothing about read-only semantics, the api_key/cse_id auth requirements implied by the schema, rate limits, or return behavior. One meaningful trait (duplicate tool) is given, but the behavioral picture is largely blank.
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?
A single short sentence with the alias relationship front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being genuinely tight.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of the search operation itself, the definition is far too thin for an agent to invoke it correctly beyond passing a bare query.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and zero mention in the description. Non-obvious parameters like mode, cse_id, api_key, and timeout_s are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent no way to know what values are valid or required.
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 states this is an alias to GoogleSearch, which tells the agent it performs the same function, but it never says the function is web search. The relationship to GoogleSearch provides routing value, yet the actual verb+resource is only inferable if the agent already knows what GoogleSearch does.
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?
It explains why the alias exists ('avoid tool name collisions in some IDEs') but gives no guidance on when to pick this over GoogleSearch or the other search siblings (gemini_search, WebFetch). The agent must guess whether the two are interchangeable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.