Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-server search for latest developments in AI"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
This project is a demonstration of the MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, which utilizes the Tavily API for web search capabilities. The server is designed to run in a standard input/output (stdio) transport mode.
Related MCP server: Tavily Web Search MCP Server
The MCP server is set up to handle web search queries using the Tavily API. It is built with the following key components:
TavilyClient: A client for interacting with the Tavily API to perform web searches.
Python 3.13 or higher
A valid Tavily API key
You'll need to install this on the Windows side of your OS.
This will require getting two CLI tool for Powershell, which you can do as follows:
winget install astral-sh.uv
winget install --id Git.Git -e --source winget
After you have those CLI tools, please open Cursor into Windows.
Then, you can clone the repository using the following command in your Cursor terminal:
git clone https://AI-Maker-Space/AIE7-MCP-Session.gitAfter that, you can follow from Step 2. below!
Clone the repository:
git clone <repository-url>
cd <repository-directory>Configure environment variables:
Copy the .env.sample to .env and add your Tavily API key:
TAVILY_API_KEY=your_api_key_here🏗️ Add a new tool to your MCP Server 🏗️
Create a new tool in the server.py file, that's it!
To start the MCP server, you will need to add the following to your MCP Profile in Cursor:
NOTE: To get to your MCP config. you can use the Command Pallete (CMD/CTRL+SHIFT+P) and select "View: Open MCP Settings" and replace the contents with the JSON blob below.
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-server": {
"command" : "uv",
"args" : ["--directory", "/PATH/TO/REPOSITORY", "run", "server.py"]
}
}
}The server will start and listen for commands via standard input/output.
The server provides a web_search tool that can be used to search the web for information about a given query. This is achieved by calling the web_search function with the desired query string.
There are a few activities for this assignment!
Choose an API that you enjoy using - and build an MCP server for it!
Build a simple LangGraph application that interacts with your MCP Server.
You can find details here!
Roll the dice with the given notation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notation | Yes | ||
| num_rolls | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 fails to mention the format of accepted notation, whether the roll is random, any constraints, error behavior, or the return value. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. Every sentence is technically earned but the content is insufficient. It is concise at the expense of usefulness.
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?
Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain the expected notation syntax or the number of rolls, and while an output schema exists, the description does not help connect inputs to outputs. The description needs more detail to be functionally complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely references 'notation' and completely ignores the 'num_rolls' parameter. The description provides essentially no semantic information beyond the parameter names.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('roll dice') with a vague reference to 'given notation'. It communicates the basic action but adds no detail about what notation is or how it differs from other tools. It's minimally clear but not strongly differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about suitable scenarios. The description simply states the action without implying any usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get consolidated stock information about a stock TICKER
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or potential side effects. The term 'consolidated' hints at aggregation but is insufficient.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness (e.g., mention that it returns price and fundamentals).
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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not provided), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output structure, data types, or any limitations. For a simple tool, more completeness is expected to aid correct invocation.
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 single parameter 'ticker' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds only that it refers to 'a stock TICKER', clarifying it's a stock symbol. This adds marginal value beyond the schema field name. More detail on format or allowed values would improve semantic clarity.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'consolidated stock information about a stock TICKER'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (roll_dice, web_search) by content type. However, 'consolidated' is vague—does it include price, fundamentals, news? Slightly ambiguous but still clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context (e.g., retrieving real-time vs. historical data) or exclusions (e.g., only supports US stocks). It simply states what it does without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the web for information about the given query
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what kind of results it returns, any potential side effects, or limitations. The description simply restates the action without adding safety or 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 a single, short sentence that is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It contains no fluff or redundant words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks essential contextual information such as when to use it, what the query parameter entails, and any behavioral details. Given the absence of annotations and minimal parameter guidance, the description is insufficient for fully correct tool invocation in ambiguous situations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description should explain what constitutes a valid query, any formatting requirements, or how the query is used. It only says 'about the given query,' which adds no meaningful detail beyond the parameter name and type.
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 performs a web search for the given query, using the specific verb 'search' and resource 'the web'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_search_repositories by specifying the web as the scope, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools. It does not mention any preconditions, alternatives, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the tool's name and generic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0roll_dicestock_infoweb_searchScored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a completely different domain: dice rolling, stock info, and web search. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names use snake_case, but 'roll_dice' follows a verb_noun pattern while 'stock_info' and 'web_search' are noun_noun. This is a minor inconsistency but still readable.
With 3 tools, the set is small but still feels reasonable for a general-purpose utility server. It is not excessively thin for the apparent scope.
The tools cover three unrelated functionalities with no common domain. There is no coverage of typical CRUD or lifecycle operations, and the set seems arbitrarily assembled without a clear purpose.
MCP server for Google search results via SERP API
Serper MCP — wraps the Serper Google Search API (serper.dev)
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.