You.com MCP Server
You.com MCP サーバー
このMCP(モデルコンテキストプロトコル)サーバーは、AIアシスタントにYou.com APIを使用したウェブ検索、ニュースの取得、リサーチ機能を提供します。フィードバックをお待ちしております。
特徴
ウェブ検索: You.com のウェブ検索機能へのアクセス
スマート検索:引用サポート付きのAIによる回答
研究:学術的な質問に対する包括的かつ引用に基づいた回答
ニュース検索:あらゆるトピックの最新のニュース記事
Related MCP server: Kagi MCP Server
前提条件
Node.js (v16 以上)
npmまたはyarn
You.com API キー ( api.you.comから取得)
インストール
このリポジトリをクローンします:
git clone https://github.com/jimbul/youcom-mcp.git cd youcom-mcp依存関係をインストールします:
npm install例に基づいて
.envファイルを作成します。cp .env.example .envYou.com API キーを
.envファイルに追加します。YOU_API_KEY=your_actual_api_key_hereプロジェクトをビルドします。
npm run build
ローカルで実行(オプション)
テストのためにサーバーをローカルで実行できます。
npm startクロードとのセットアップ
この MCP サーバーを Claude (Anthropic Assistant) で使用するには、このサーバーを使用するように Claude を構成する必要があります。
VS Code で Claude 拡張機能の設定を開きます。
VS CodeサイドバーのClaudeアイコンをクリックします
設定アイコン(⚙️)をクリックし、「MCP設定」を選択します
mcpServersセクションに次の構成を追加します。
"youcom-mcp": {
"autoApprove": [],
"disabled": false,
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/absolute/path/to/your/youcom-mcp/dist/index.js"
],
"env": {
"YOU_API_KEY": "your_actual_api_key_here"
},
"transportType": "stdio"
}重要な注意事項:
/absolute/path/to/your/youcom-mcp/dist/index.jsをシステム上の実際のパスに置き換えます。your_actual_api_key_hereを You.com API キーに置き換えます。
使用例
設定が完了すると、Claude との会話で MCP ツールを直接使用できるようになります。
ウェブ検索
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>youcom-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>web_search</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"query": "latest research on renewable energy"
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>スマート検索
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>youcom-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>smart_search</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"query": "how do quantum computers work",
"instructions": "explain in simple terms"
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>研究
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>youcom-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>research</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"query": "effects of climate change on ocean ecosystems",
"instructions": "focus on coral reefs"
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>ニュース検索
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>youcom-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>news_search</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"query": "latest developments in AI"
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>貢献
貢献を歓迎します!お気軽にプルリクエストを送信してください。
ライセンス
マサチューセッツ工科大学
謝辞
このプロジェクトでは、検索機能にYou.com APIを使用します。
Available Tools
4 toolsnews_searchD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The news query to send to You.com's News API |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
researchD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instructions | No | Custom instructions for tailoring the response (optional) | |
| query | Yes | The research query to send to You.com's Research API |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
smart_searchD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | No | A hex UUID to maintain conversation continuity (optional) | |
| instructions | No | Custom instructions for tailoring the response (optional) | |
| query | Yes | The query to send to You.com's Smart API |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
web_searchD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query to send to You.com |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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.
4 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
news_search - First observed
research - First observed
smart_search - First observed
web_search
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
The tools are highly ambiguous with overlapping purposes, as all four tools appear to perform search-related functions without clear distinctions. Without descriptions, it's impossible to differentiate between 'news_search', 'research', 'smart_search', and 'web_search', making them effectively indistinguishable for an agent.
The naming shows mixed conventions: 'news_search' and 'web_search' follow a consistent noun_verb pattern, but 'research' and 'smart_search' deviate with different structures. While readable, the inconsistency in verb usage and pattern reduces predictability across the set.
With 4 tools, the count is borderline for a search-focused server, as it feels thin but not unreasonable. However, the lack of descriptions makes it hard to assess if this number adequately covers the domain, suggesting potential under-scoping or redundancy.
Inferred as a search server, there are significant gaps in coverage, such as missing filtering, sorting, or result management tools. The surface is severely incomplete for a robust search domain, likely causing agent failures due to limited operational capabilities.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Use AI models for chat, image, and video generation from Claude Code and other MCP hosts.
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
MCP server giving Claude AI access to 22+ NYC public-record databases for real estate due diligence
Augments MCP Server - A comprehensive framework documentation provider for Claude Code
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides access to Jina AI's powerful web services (page reading, web search, fact checking) through Claude.378 npm28MIT

Kagi MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that integrates Kagi search capabilities with Claude AI, enabling Claude to perform real-time web searches when answering questions that require up-to-date information.2533MIT- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables Claude to perform web searches using Perplexity's API with intelligent model selection based on query intent and support for domain and recency filtering.64MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that integrates with Sonar API to provide Claude with real-time web search capabilities for comprehensive research.7 npmMIT