Skip to main content
Glama
julie-berlin

Tavily Web Search MCP Server

by julie-berlin
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct and non-overlapping purpose: get_exchange_rate handles currency conversion, roll_dice performs random dice rolls, and web_search conducts internet searches. There is no ambiguity in their functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for each task.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming conventions are mixed and not fully consistent. get_exchange_rate and web_search follow a verb_noun pattern, but roll_dice uses a verb_noun format without an underscore. While all names are readable, the deviation in roll_dice breaks a consistent pattern, leading to a moderate score.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the count feels too thin for a server labeled 'Tavily Web Search MCP Server', as it suggests a broader scope than just web search. The inclusion of unrelated tools like get_exchange_rate and roll_dice makes the set seem incomplete or mismatched, lacking focus on a cohesive domain.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for the implied domain of web search. While web_search is present, there are no complementary tools for refining searches, handling results, or managing search history. The unrelated tools (exchange rates and dice) do not contribute to a coherent workflow, leaving the core functionality underdeveloped.

  • Average 3/5 across 3 of 3 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool rolls dice but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's deterministic, random, or has any side effects. It mentions 'given notation' but doesn't explain what that entails. More context on how the tool behaves is needed.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's low complexity (simple dice rolling), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which likely explains return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter explanations and behavioral context, making it adequate but with gaps.

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

    Parameters2/5

    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. It mentions 'given notation' which hints at the 'notation' parameter, but doesn't explain what dice notation is (e.g., '2d6' for two six-sided dice). It doesn't address the 'num_rolls' parameter at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Roll the dice with the given notation' states the action (roll) and resource (dice), but is vague about what 'given notation' means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (get_exchange_rate, web_search), which is fine as they're unrelated. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about dice notation formats.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since sibling tools are unrelated (currency exchange and web search), this isn't critical, but there's no usage advice at all.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 the tool fetches 'latest' rates but doesn't specify update frequency, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes key specifications (ISO 4217, all supported currencies), making it highly concise and effective.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching financial data), no annotations, and an output schema present (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the input format and output scope but lacks details on data freshness, error cases, or usage constraints, which could be important for reliable agent operation.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('currency_code') undocumented in the schema. The description adds value by specifying the parameter must be in 'ISO 4217' format, which clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't detail supported codes or validation rules, leaving some ambiguity.

    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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest exchange rates'), specifying the input (base currency code in ISO 4217 format) and output scope (to all other supported currencies). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'roll_dice' or 'web_search', but those are unrelated, so differentiation isn't critical here.

    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, prerequisites, or limitations. While sibling tools are unrelated (e.g., 'roll_dice' for random number generation, 'web_search' for general queries), the description lacks explicit usage context, such as frequency constraints or data source reliability.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 'Search the web' but doesn't describe traits like rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or potential side effects (e.g., network usage). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for a simple tool like this.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are important for an agent to use it effectively in varied contexts.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies the 'query' parameter is for searching, but doesn't elaborate on syntax, constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides some context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of detailed parameter documentation.

    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 the action ('Search the web') and the resource ('information about the given query'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_exchange_rate' or 'roll_dice', which are unrelated, so it doesn't need to distinguish but could mention uniqueness if relevant.

    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 or in what contexts it's appropriate. It simply states what it does without any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

    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

pub-aie7-mcp-session MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

pub-aie7-mcp-session 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/julie-berlin/pub-aie7-mcp-session'

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