Skip to main content
Glama
kouui

DuckDuckGo Web Search MCP Server

by kouui
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have distinct primary purposes: 'search_and_fetch' performs web searches and returns results, while 'fetch' scrapes HTML content from a given URL. However, there is some potential for confusion because 'fetch' accepts a 'url' argument but its description mentions 'search query string' (likely a documentation error), which could blur the boundary between searching and fetching.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The tool names follow a consistent verb-based pattern ('fetch' and 'search_and_fetch'), with clear action-oriented naming. The minor deviation is that 'search_and_fetch' uses an 'and' conjunction, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a web search and scraping domain. While it covers basic search and fetch operations, more tools (e.g., for advanced search filtering, caching, or handling different content types) would provide better scope. It's borderline but not severely lacking.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers core web search and content fetching workflows, but there are notable gaps. For example, it lacks tools for managing search history, refining queries, handling pagination, or supporting different output formats beyond markdown. Agents can work around these, but the surface is not fully comprehensive.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using the Jina API and the transformation to markdown format, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, whether this makes external network calls, or what happens with invalid URLs. For a tool that performs web scraping with an external API, this is a significant gap.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is brief but has structural issues. The first sentence is clear, but the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections use inconsistent formatting and terminology ('search query string' for a URL parameter). While concise, it could be more effectively structured with clearer separation of concerns.

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

    Completeness2/5

    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 a tool that performs web scraping via an external API, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects: error conditions, rate limits, authentication, what types of URLs are supported, or the structure/limitations of the returned markdown. For a tool with external dependencies and potential complexity, this is inadequate.

    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 parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description states 'url: The search query string' which is somewhat confusing (calling it a 'search query string' when it's clearly a URL parameter). It doesn't explain URL format requirements, validation, or provide examples. The baseline would be lower given the coverage gap, but it does at least identify the parameter's purpose.

    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: 'scrape the html content and return the markdown format using jina api.' It specifies the verb (scrape/return), resource (html content), and transformation (to markdown format). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'search_and_fetch' - we can infer it's a direct fetch while the sibling might search first, but this isn't stated.

    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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the sibling tool 'search_and_fetch' or explain when direct fetching is appropriate versus searching and fetching. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search engine (DuckDuckGo) and return format, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

    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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place - no redundant information. The formatting with bullet points enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

    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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good coverage of purpose, parameters, and return format. It could benefit from more behavioral context (like rate limits or error handling) but is largely complete for a search tool.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The description adds significant value beyond the 0% schema coverage by explaining both parameters: 'query' as the search string and 'limit' with its default (3) and maximum (10) values. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases.

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

    Purpose5/5

    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 specific verb ('Search the web using DuckDuckGo') and resource ('return results'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'fetch' tool by specifying it's a search operation rather than a direct fetch operation.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage context (searching the web) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the 'fetch' sibling. It provides basic parameter guidance but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria.

    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

web-search-duckduckgo MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

web-search-duckduckgo 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/kouui/web-search-duckduckgo'

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