WebSearch
WebSearch: herramienta avanzada de búsqueda web y extracción de contenido
Una potente herramienta de búsqueda web y extracción de contenido creada con Python, que aprovecha la API Firecrawl para obtener capacidades avanzadas de análisis de contenido, búsqueda y raspado web.
🚀 Características
Búsqueda web avanzada : realice búsquedas web inteligentes con parámetros personalizables
Extracción de contenido : extraiga información específica de páginas web mediante indicaciones en lenguaje natural
Rastreo web : rastreo de sitios web con profundidad y límites configurables
Web Scraping : Extraiga páginas web con soporte para varios formatos de salida
Integración MCP : Construido como un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto Modelo (MCP) para una integración perfecta
Related MCP server: Firecrawl MCP Server
📋 Requisitos previos
Python 3.8 o superior
administrador de paquetes uv
Clave API de Firecrawl
Clave API de OpenAI (opcional, para funciones mejoradas)
Clave API de Tavily (opcional, para capacidades de búsqueda adicionales)
🛠️ Instalación
Instalar uv:
# On Windows (using pip)
pip install uv
# On Unix/MacOS
curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh
# Add uv to PATH (Unix/MacOS)
export PATH="$HOME/.local/bin:$PATH"
# Add uv to PATH (Windows - add to Environment Variables)
# Add: %USERPROFILE%\.local\binClonar el repositorio:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/websearch.git
cd websearchCrear y activar un entorno virtual con uv:
# Create virtual environment
uv venv
# Activate on Windows
.\.venv\Scripts\activate.ps1
# Activate on Unix/MacOS
source .venv/bin/activateInstalar dependencias con uv:
# Install from requirements.txt
uv syncConfigurar variables de entorno:
# Create .env file
touch .env
# Add your API keys
FIRECRAWL_API_KEY=your_firecrawl_api_key
OPENAI_API_KEY=your_openai_api_key🎯 Uso
Configuración con Claude para escritorio
En lugar de ejecutar el servidor directamente, puede configurar Claude for Desktop para acceder a las herramientas de búsqueda web:
Localice o cree su archivo de configuración de Claude for Desktop:
Ventanas:
%env:AppData%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.jsonmacOS:
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Agregue la configuración del servidor WebSearch a la sección
mcpServers:
{
"mcpServers": {
"websearch": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"D:\\ABSOLUTE\\PATH\\TO\\WebSearch",
"run",
"main.py"
]
}
}
}Asegúrese de reemplazar la ruta del directorio con la ruta absoluta a la carpeta del proyecto WebSearch.
Guarde el archivo de configuración y reinicie Claude for Desktop.
Una vez configuradas, las herramientas de WebSearch aparecerán en el menú de herramientas (icono de martillo) en Claude for Desktop.
Herramientas disponibles
Buscar
Extraer información
Rastrear sitios web
Extraer contenido
Referencia de API
Buscar
query(str): La consulta de búsquedaDevuelve: Resultados de búsqueda en formato JSON
Extracto
urls(List[str]): Lista de URL de las que extraer informaciónprompt(str): Instrucciones para la extracciónenableWebSearch(bool): Habilitar búsqueda web complementariashowSources(bool): incluye referencias de origenDevuelve: información extraída en el formato especificado
Gatear
url(str): URL de iniciomaxDepth(int): profundidad máxima de rastreolimit(int): Máximo de páginas a rastrearDevoluciones: contenido rastreado en formato Markdown/HTML
Raspar
url(str): URL de destinoDevoluciones: contenido extraído con capturas de pantalla opcionales
🔧 Configuración
Variables de entorno
La herramienta requiere ciertas claves API para funcionar. Proporcionamos un archivo .env.example que puede usar como plantilla:
Copia el archivo de ejemplo:
# On Unix/MacOS
cp .env.example .env
# On Windows
copy .env.example .envEdite el archivo
.envcon sus claves API:
# OpenAI API key - Required for AI-powered features
OPENAI_API_KEY=your_openai_api_key_here
# Firecrawl API key - Required for web scraping and searching
FIRECRAWL_API_KEY=your_firecrawl_api_key_hereObtener las claves API
Clave API de OpenAI :
Visita la plataforma de OpenAI
Regístrate o inicia sesión
Navegar a la sección de claves API
Crear una nueva clave secreta
Clave API de Firecrawl :
Visita el sitio web de Firecrawl
Crear una cuenta
Navega a tu panel de control
Generar una nueva clave API
Si todo está configurado correctamente, debería recibir una respuesta JSON con los resultados de la búsqueda.
Solución de problemas
Si encuentra errores:
Asegúrese de que todas las claves API necesarias estén configuradas en su archivo
.envVerifique que las claves API sean válidas y no hayan expirado
Verifique que el archivo
.envesté en el directorio raíz del proyectoAsegúrese de que las variables de entorno se estén cargando correctamente
🤝 Contribuyendo
Bifurcar el repositorio
Crea tu rama de funciones (
git checkout -b feature/AmazingFeature)Confirme sus cambios (
git commit -m 'Add some AmazingFeature')Empujar a la rama (
git push origin feature/AmazingFeature)Abrir una solicitud de extracción
📝 Licencia
Este proyecto está licenciado bajo la licencia MIT: consulte el archivo de LICENCIA para obtener más detalles.
🙏 Agradecimientos
Firecrawl por su potente API de raspado web
OpenAI para capacidades de IA
MCP La comunidad MCP para la especificación del protocolo
📬 Contacto
José Martín Rodríguez Mortaloni - @m4s1t425 - jmrodriguezm13@gmail.com
Hecho con ❤️ usando Python y Firecrawl
Available Tools
4 toolscrawlB
Crawls a website starting from the specified URL and extracts content from multiple pages. Args: - url: The complete URL of the web page to start crawling from - maxDepth: The maximum depth level for crawling linked pages - limit: The maximum number of pages to crawl
Returns:
- Content extracted from the crawled pages in markdown and HTML format
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| maxDepth | Yes | ||
| limit | Yes |
TDQS
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 tool crawls and extracts content, implying it performs read operations, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, potential impacts on target sites, or error handling. For a web crawling tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is efficiently structured: a concise opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a bulleted list for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key details.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (web crawling with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output format specifics beyond 'markdown and HTML format'. This is adequate for a minimal viable description but has clear gaps.
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?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'url' as the starting point, 'maxDepth' for crawl depth, and 'limit' for page count. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all three parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Crawls a website starting from the specified URL and extracts content from multiple pages.' It specifies the verb ('crawls'), resource ('website'), and scope ('extracts content from multiple pages'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract' or 'scrape', which likely have overlapping functions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract' or 'scrape'. It mentions the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases. This leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extractB
Extracts specific information from a web page based on a prompt. Args: - url: The complete URL of the web page to extract information from - prompt: Instructions specifying what information to extract from the page - enabaleWebSearch: Whether to allow web searches to supplement the extraction - showSources: Whether to include source references in the response
Returns:
- Extracted information from the web page based on the prompt
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| enabaleWebSearch | Yes | ||
| showSources | Yes |
TDQS
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 mentions that the tool extracts information and includes parameters for web search and source references, but doesn't describe what happens during extraction (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'extracted information' looks like). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return value description. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific. Every sentence adds value, and there's no unnecessary repetition or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details about behavioral traits, error handling, and what the extracted information actually contains. Without an output schema, the return value description is vague ('Extracted information from the web page based on the prompt').
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?
The description provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters beyond what the input schema offers (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that 'url' is for the web page, 'prompt' specifies what to extract, 'enableWebSearch' allows supplemental searches, and 'showSources' includes references. This adds significant value over the bare schema, though it doesn't detail parameter interactions or constraints.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: extracting specific information from a web page based on a prompt. It specifies the verb ('extracts') and resource ('web page'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crawl', 'scrape', or 'search' beyond the extraction focus. The description is specific about the action but lacks sibling tool comparison.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crawl', 'scrape', or 'search'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for extracting information from web pages, but with no context about when this is preferable to other tools on the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scrapeD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
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.
searchC
Performs web searches and retrieves up-to-date information from the internet. Args: - prompt: Specific query or topic to search for on the internet - limit: Maximum number of results to return (between 1 and 20)
Returns:
- Search results with relevant information about the requested topic
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
TDQS
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 mentions retrieving 'up-to-date information' and a limit on results, which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'up-to-date' means (e.g., real-time vs. cached). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. It uses bullet points for readability, and each sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff. However, the parameter mismatch slightly reduces efficiency, but overall it's concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It provides basic purpose and some behavioral hints but lacks details on parameters (due to mismatch), error cases, or output structure. For a web search tool with potential complexity, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it effectively.
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?
The description lists two parameters (prompt and limit), but the input schema only has one parameter (query). This creates a contradiction, as 'prompt' in the description doesn't match 'query' in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage and mismatched parameters, the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema and actually misleads about the tool's inputs.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Performs web searches and retrieves up-to-date information from the internet.' This specifies the verb ('performs web searches') and resource ('information from the internet'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crawl, extract, or scrape, which likely have overlapping internet-related functions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like crawl, extract, or scrape, nor does it specify scenarios where search is preferred over them. The usage context is implied (web searches for up-to-date information) but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons.
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
crawl - First observed
extract - First observed
scrape - First observed
search
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
The tools have significant overlap and unclear boundaries. 'crawl' extracts content from multiple pages, 'extract' pulls specific info from a single page, and 'scrape' (with no description) is ambiguous—likely overlapping with both. 'search' is distinct for web searches, but the others could easily be confused for similar web content tasks.
All tool names follow a consistent, simple verb pattern (crawl, extract, scrape, search). They are short, clear, and uniformly styled without mixing conventions, making them predictable and easy to parse.
Four tools is reasonable for a web search domain, allowing coverage of crawling, extraction, scraping, and searching. It's slightly thin but manageable, as each tool addresses a core aspect of web data retrieval without being overly bloated.
There are notable gaps in the tool surface. The server covers basic retrieval (crawl, search) and extraction, but lacks update/delete operations (e.g., no tool to modify or clear cached data) and has a dead tool ('scrape' with no description), which limits functionality. However, agents can work around this for common web search tasks.
Related MCP Connectors
Firecrawl MCP — wraps the Firecrawl API (firecrawl.dev) for web
Scrape, crawl and search the web for AI agents via MCP.
Free web search for AI agents. No API key required. Hosted MCP in active development.
Docs: https://docs.keenable.ai/mcp-server Keenable is a free, remote MCP server that gives agents access to the web index. Search the web with ranked results and date/site filters, then fetch any indexed page as clean markdown. Works out of the box with no account or API key.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables web search, scraping, crawling, and content extraction through multiple engines including SearXNG, Firecrawl, and Tavily.4121 npm141MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to perform advanced web scraping, crawling, searching, and data extraction through the Firecrawl API.922,552 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables web scraping, crawling, and content extraction capabilities through integration with Firecrawl.822,552 npm2MIT
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA production-ready Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that integrates with the Firecrawl API to give AI assistants the power to scrape, crawl, and search the web.3-
Appeared in Searches
- Web search tools and methods that don't require API keys
- A server for searching research papers, Kaggle datasets, and websites for ML/AI model training data
- iPhone 16e camera review summary and table creation in Italian
- Web scraping and content extraction
- Web scraping tool for extracting content from SearXNG search results