Python MCP Toolkit Server

web_search

Search public web pages and retrieve titles, URLs, and summaries. Automatically selects between Bing and Tavily providers.

Instructions

联网搜索公开网页，返回标题、URL 和摘要。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "web_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	要联网搜索的关键词或问题。
`max_results`	No	最多返回的搜索结果数量，实际限制在 1 到 50；Bing 搜索会自动翻页。
`provider`	No	auto 优先使用 Tavily；未配置 Tavily Key 时使用 Bing；也可显式选择 tavily 或 bing。	auto

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the output format but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or limitations. Parameter-level descriptions in the schema hint at pagination, but the main description lacks this context.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters (100% schema coverage) and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could be enriched by mentioning provider options and result pagination, but the schema fills many gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but it is not required to.

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 verb 'search', resource 'public web pages', and specifies the return fields (title, URL, summary). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools 'agent' and 'file_operation'.

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 like 'agent' or 'file_operation'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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

Deploy Server