Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Search MCP Server

Search MCP Server

by ilgizar-valiullin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

report_search_usage

Report which search results were actually cited in the agent's final answer. Use after forming a response from web search to track cited document IDs.

Instructions

Report which search results were actually cited in the agent's final answer. Call this after you have formulated your response using web_search results.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "search_id": "<search_id>",
      "used_doc_ids": "<used_doc_ids>"
    },
    "name": "report_search_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
search_idYesSearch ID from the search response
used_doc_idsYesDoc IDs that were actually cited in the agent's final answer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.10.16

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the purpose and timing but does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or what happens if called prematurely. For a simple reporting tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a clear usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential 'what' and 'when.' It could mention what the response looks like or that this is the final step, but the given context is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the params are fully documented there. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Report which search results were actually cited') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like web_search and status. It also gives a precise context ('in the agent's final answer').

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Call this after you have formulated your response using web_search results,' providing a clear timing condition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the relationship to web_search is evident and the instruction is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools