Skip to main content
Glama
jspv

Google Search MCP Server

by jspv
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single 'search' tool has a clearly defined and distinct purpose that cannot be mistaken for any other tool in this server.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The naming is trivially consistent as there is only one tool named 'search'. This follows a simple verb pattern and there are no other tools to create inconsistency or mixed conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server named 'Google Search MCP Server', which suggests broader search functionality. While the tool is feature-rich, the server lacks complementary tools like image_search, news_search, or advanced filtering tools that would make the set more complete and appropriate for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for a Google Search domain. It only provides a general web search tool, missing obvious gaps such as image search, video search, news search, or specialized search types that agents would expect from a comprehensive search interface. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common search-related tasks beyond basic web queries.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

    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 does well by describing the return structure ('Returns: A dict with keys...'), error conditions ('Raises: ValueError...'), and implementation details like 'clamped' ranges and 'sanitized' queries. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or cost implications.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured with clear sections (Parameters, Returns, Raises) and uses bullet-like formatting. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Google Programmable Search (CSE) via MCP' could be simplified). Overall, it's efficiently organized with minimal wasted space.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no annotations), the description provides substantial context. It covers parameters thoroughly, describes the return structure (though an output schema exists), and documents error conditions. The main gap is lack of usage guidance and some behavioral aspects like rate limits. For a search tool with many parameters, this is quite complete.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 0% schema description coverage for 16 parameters, the description provides excellent compensation. It explains every parameter's purpose, constraints (e.g., '1..10; clamped'), and special behaviors (e.g., 'Trimmed; required', 'avoid echoing to clients'). The parameter explanations add substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states this tool performs 'Google Programmable Search (CSE) via MCP,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, without sibling tools to differentiate from, it cannot achieve the highest score of 5. The purpose is unambiguous: it executes search queries through Google's Custom Search Engine.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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. There are no sibling tools mentioned, but it doesn't discuss typical use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. The agent receives no help in determining appropriate contexts for invoking this search tool.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

google_search_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

google_search_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jspv/google_search_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server