A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceProvides web search capabilities using Google Custom Search API, enabling users to perform searches through a Model Context Protocol server.
2
255 npm
69
MIT
MCP Server for Google Search
by mcp-for-dev
Сервер MCP для поиска Google
Сервер Model Context Protocol, который предоставляет возможности веб-поиска с использованием API пользовательского поиска Google и функции извлечения содержимого веб-страниц.
Инструменты
Поиск
Выполняйте веб-поиск с помощью API пользовательского поиска Google:
Поиск по всему Интернету или определенным сайтам
Контрольное число результатов (1-10)
Получите структурированные результаты с заголовком, ссылкой и фрагментом
Читатель веб-страниц
Извлечение содержимого с любой веб-страницы:
Извлечение и анализ содержимого веб-страницы
Извлечь заголовок страницы и основной текст
Очистите контент, удалив скрипты и стили.
Возвращайте структурированные данные с заголовком, текстом и URL-адресом.
Related MCP server: MCP Google Custom Search Server
Установка
Получите ключ API Google и идентификатор поисковой системы
Создайте проект Google Cloud:
Перейти в Google Cloud Console
Создайте новый проект или выберите существующий
Включите выставление счетов для вашего проекта
Включить API пользовательского поиска:
Перейти к библиотеке API
Поиск по запросу «API пользовательского поиска»
Нажмите «Включить».
Получить ключ API:
Перейти к учетным данным
Нажмите «Создать учетные данные» > «Ключ API».
Скопируйте свой ключ API
(Необязательно) Ограничьте ключ API только API пользовательского поиска
Создать пользовательскую поисковую систему:
Перейти к программируемой поисковой системе
Введите сайты, на которых вы хотите искать (для общего веб-поиска используйте www.google.com )
Нажмите «Создать»
На следующей странице нажмите «Настроить».
В настройках включите «Поиск по всему Интернету»
Скопируйте идентификатор вашей поисковой системы (cx)
Конфигурация клиента
Для использования с Claude Desktop добавьте конфигурацию сервера с вашими учетными данными Google API:
В MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json В Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"google-search": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@mcp-for-dev/mcp-google-search"],
"env": {
"GOOGLE_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here",
"GOOGLE_SEARCH_ENGINE_ID": "your-search-engine-id-here"
}
}
}
}Available Tools
2 toolsgoogle_searchC
Perform a web search query
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| num | No | Number of results (1-10) |
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, caching, or return format. The agent is left without important context for safe invocation.
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 a single concise sentence, but it is too minimal. While there is no wasted text, it lacks structure (e.g., separating purpose from usage details).
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 simple structure (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fails to mention return behavior or result format, leaving the agent unaware of what to expect after invocation.
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 for both parameters, so the schema itself provides the meaning. The description adds no further semantic value beyond restating the schema.
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 'Perform a web search query' clearly indicates the tool's verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling 'read_webpage' which reads a specific page.
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 vs. alternatives (e.g., read_webpage) or any prerequisites. The description lacks explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_webpageA
Fetch and extract text content from a webpage
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL of the webpage to read |
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states basic purpose without mentioning rate limits, authentication, dynamic content handling, or error responses.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on handling of large pages, timeouts, or what 'text content' entails (e.g., stripping HTML).
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% (single 'url' parameter described), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as URL format or protocol support.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Fetch and extract') and the resource ('text content from a webpage'), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'search' which is for querying.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'search' suggests a different purpose, but the description does not clarify contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- Added
google_search - Added
read_webpage
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one performs web searches, the other extracts text from a specific URL. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with snake_case (google_search, read_webpage), making them predictable and consistent.
Tool Count4/5
With only two tools, the set is minimal but covers the core search workflow. It avoids unnecessary bloat, though additional search variants could be justified.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the basic search-then-read workflow. Missing features like pagination or filtered searches are minor gaps, but the essential path is complete.
Related MCP Connectors
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
MCP server for Google search results via SERP API
MCP server for Firecrawl — web search, scraping, and biomedical/arXiv paper search.
Free web search for AI agents. No API key required. Hosted MCP in active development.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to perform web searches using Google's Custom Search API through a standardized interface.147MIT
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides web and image search capabilities through Google's Custom Search API, allowing AI assistants like Claude to access current information from the internet.24-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides web search capabilities using Google Custom Search API and webpage content extraction functionality.2MIT