Skip to main content
Glama
louxsye

Gemini Google Web Search MCP

by louxsye
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
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 ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as performing web searches, making it distinct by default.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'google_web_search' follows a clear and descriptive pattern, though no comparison to other tools is possible.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool for a web search server is too minimal for the apparent scope. While the tool covers the core function, typical search-related servers might include additional tools like advanced search options, filtering, or result management, making this feel thin and underdeveloped.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for a web search domain. It lacks essential operations such as filtering results by date, language, or region, handling pagination, or providing related searches, which are common in search APIs and necessary for robust agent workflows.

  • Average 3.1/5 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 Apache 2.0.

  • 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 the full burden. It mentions the tool uses the Gemini API and returns results, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or potential limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

    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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and utility. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating API details from usage). Overall, it earns its place efficiently.

    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 the complexity of a web search tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or operational constraints (e.g., API limits, latency), which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter well-documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the query's purpose ('find information on the internet'), but does not provide additional semantics like query formatting tips or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

    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: 'Performs a web search using Google Search' and 'returns the results.' It specifies the action (search) and resource (web via Google), but lacks differentiation from siblings since there are none, which is acceptable but prevents a perfect score.

    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 provides implied usage by stating it's 'useful for finding information on the internet based on a query,' which suggests when to use it. However, it does not explicitly outline when not to use it or mention alternatives, and there are no siblings to compare against, so guidance is basic.

    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-web-search-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

google-web-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/louxsye/google-web-search-mcp'

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