You.com MCP Server
You.com MCP 服务器
此 MCP(模型上下文协议)服务器为 AI 助手提供了使用 You.com API 搜索网页、获取新闻和进行研究的功能。欢迎反馈。
特征
网页搜索:访问 You.com 的网页搜索功能
智能搜索:人工智能答案,提供引文支持
研究:针对学术疑问提供全面的、有引证依据的答案
新闻搜索:任何主题的最新新闻文章
Related MCP server: Kagi MCP Server
先决条件
Node.js(v16 或更高版本)
npm 或 yarn
You.com API 密钥(从api.you.com获取)
安装
克隆此存储库:
git clone https://github.com/jimbul/youcom-mcp.git cd youcom-mcp安装依赖项:
npm install根据示例创建一个
.env文件:cp .env.example .env将您的 You.com API 密钥添加到
.env文件:YOU_API_KEY=your_actual_api_key_here构建项目:
npm run build
本地运行(可选)
您可以在本地运行服务器进行测试:
npm start与 Claude 一起设置
要将此 MCP 服务器与 Claude(Anthropic Assistant)一起使用,您需要配置 Claude 以使用此服务器:
在 VS Code 中打开 Claude 扩展设置:
单击 VS Code 侧栏中的 Claude 图标
点击设置图标 (⚙️) 并选择“MCP 设置”
将以下配置添加到
mcpServers部分:
"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"
}重要提示:
将
/absolute/path/to/your/youcom-mcp/dist/index.js替换为系统上的实际路径将
your_actual_api_key_here替换为您的 You.com API 密钥
使用示例
配置完成后,您可以在与 Claude 的对话中直接使用 MCP 工具:
网页搜索
<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>智能搜索
<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>新闻搜索
<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>贡献
欢迎贡献代码!欢迎提交 Pull 请求。
执照
麻省理工学院
致谢
该项目使用You.com API实现搜索功能。
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