DuckDuckGo MCP Server
Provides search capabilities through tools for text, image, news, and video searches using DuckDuckGo's API, plus access to DuckDuckGo's AI chat with multiple model options.
Provides access to Meta's Llama 3.3 70B model through the DuckDuckGo AI chat tool.
Enables interaction with OpenAI's models (GPT-4o-mini and O3-mini) through the DuckDuckGo AI chat tool.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@DuckDuckGo MCP Serversearch for recent AI news from the last week"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
ddg-mcp MCP server
DuckDuckGo search API MCP - A server that provides DuckDuckGo search capabilities through the Model Context Protocol.
Components
Prompts
The server provides the following prompts:
search-results-summary: Creates a summary of DuckDuckGo search results
Required "query" argument for the search term
Optional "style" argument to control detail level (brief/detailed)
Tools
The server implements the following DuckDuckGo search tools:
ddg-text-search: Search the web for text results using DuckDuckGo
Required: "keywords" - Search query keywords
Optional: "region", "safesearch", "timelimit", "max_results"
ddg-image-search: Search the web for images using DuckDuckGo
Required: "keywords" - Search query keywords
Optional: "region", "safesearch", "timelimit", "size", "color", "type_image", "layout", "license_image", "max_results"
ddg-news-search: Search for news articles using DuckDuckGo
Required: "keywords" - Search query keywords
Optional: "region", "safesearch", "timelimit", "max_results"
ddg-video-search: Search for videos using DuckDuckGo
Required: "keywords" - Search query keywords
Optional: "region", "safesearch", "timelimit", "resolution", "duration", "license_videos", "max_results"
ddg-ai-chat: Chat with DuckDuckGo AI
Required: "keywords" - Message or question to send to the AI
Optional: "model" - AI model to use (options: "gpt-4o-mini", "llama-3.3-70b", "claude-3-haiku", "o3-mini", "mistral-small-3")
Related MCP server: DuckDuckGo MCP Server
Installation
Prerequisites
Python 3.9 or higher
uv (recommended) or pip
Install from PyPI
# Using uv
uv install ddg-mcp
# Using pip
pip install ddg-mcpInstall from Source
Clone the repository:
git clone https://github.com/misanthropic-ai/ddg-mcp.git
cd ddg-mcpInstall the package:
# Using uv
uv install -e .
# Using pip
pip install -e .Configuration
Required Dependencies
The server requires the duckduckgo-search package, which will be installed automatically when you install ddg-mcp.
If you need to install it manually:
uv install duckduckgo-search
# or
pip install duckduckgo-searchDuckDuckGo Search Parameters
Common Parameters
These parameters are available for most search types:
region: Region code for localized results (default: "wt-wt")
Examples: "us-en" (US English), "uk-en" (UK English), "ru-ru" (Russian)
See DuckDuckGo regions for more options
safesearch: Content filtering level (default: "moderate")
"on": Strict filtering
"moderate": Moderate filtering
"off": No filtering
timelimit: Time range for results
"d": Last day
"w": Last week
"m": Last month
"y": Last year (not available for news/videos)
max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default: 10)
Search Operators
You can use these operators in your search keywords:
cats dogs: Results about cats or dogs"cats and dogs": Results for exact term "cats and dogs"cats -dogs: Fewer dogs in resultscats +dogs: More dogs in resultscats filetype:pdf: PDFs about cats (supported: pdf, doc(x), xls(x), ppt(x), html)dogs site:example.com: Pages about dogs from example.comcats -site:example.com: Pages about cats, excluding example.comintitle:dogs: Page title includes the word "dogs"inurl:cats: Page URL includes the word "cats"
Image Search Specific Parameters
size: "Small", "Medium", "Large", "Wallpaper"
color: "color", "Monochrome", "Red", "Orange", "Yellow", "Green", "Blue", "Purple", "Pink", "Brown", "Black", "Gray", "Teal", "White"
type_image: "photo", "clipart", "gif", "transparent", "line"
layout: "Square", "Tall", "Wide"
license_image: "any", "Public", "Share", "ShareCommercially", "Modify", "ModifyCommercially"
Video Search Specific Parameters
resolution: "high", "standard"
duration: "short", "medium", "long"
license_videos: "creativeCommon", "youtube"
AI Chat Models
gpt-4o-mini: OpenAI's GPT-4o mini model
llama-3.3-70b: Meta's Llama 3.3 70B model
claude-3-haiku: Anthropic's Claude 3 Haiku model
o3-mini: OpenAI's O3 mini model
mistral-small-3: Mistral AI's small model
Quickstart
Install
Claude Desktop
On MacOS: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
On Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Usage Examples
Text Search
Use the ddg-text-search tool to search for "climate change solutions"Advanced example:
Use the ddg-text-search tool to search for "renewable energy filetype:pdf site:edu" with region "us-en", safesearch "off", timelimit "y", and max_results 20Image Search
Use the ddg-image-search tool to find images of "renewable energy" with color set to "Green"Advanced example:
Use the ddg-image-search tool to find images of "mountain landscape" with size "Large", color "Blue", type_image "photo", layout "Wide", and license_image "Public"News Search
Use the ddg-news-search tool to find recent news about "artificial intelligence" from the last dayAdvanced example:
Use the ddg-news-search tool to search for "space exploration" with region "uk-en", timelimit "w", and max_results 15Video Search
Use the ddg-video-search tool to find videos about "machine learning tutorials" with duration set to "medium"Advanced example:
Use the ddg-video-search tool to search for "cooking recipes" with resolution "high", duration "short", license_videos "creativeCommon", and max_results 10AI Chat
Use the ddg-ai-chat tool to ask "What are the latest developments in quantum computing?" using the claude-3-haiku modelSearch Results Summary
Use the search-results-summary prompt with query "space exploration" and style "detailed"Claude config
"ddg-mcp": { "command": "uv", "args": [ "--directory", "/PATH/TO/YOUR/INSTALLATION/ddg-mcp", "run", "ddg-mcp" ] },
Development
Building and Publishing
To prepare the package for distribution:
Sync dependencies and update lockfile:
uv syncBuild package distributions:
uv buildThis will create source and wheel distributions in the dist/ directory.
Publish to PyPI:
uv publishNote: You'll need to set PyPI credentials via environment variables or command flags:
Token:
--tokenorUV_PUBLISH_TOKENOr username/password:
--username/UV_PUBLISH_USERNAMEand--password/UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD
Automated Publishing with GitHub Actions
This repository includes a GitHub Actions workflow for automated publishing to PyPI. The workflow is triggered when:
A new GitHub Release is created
The workflow is manually triggered via the GitHub Actions interface
To set up automated publishing:
Generate a PyPI API token:
Create a new token with scope limited to the
ddg-mcpprojectCopy the token value (you'll only see it once)
Add the token to your GitHub repository secrets:
Go to your repository on GitHub
Navigate to Settings > Secrets and variables > Actions
Click "New repository secret"
Name:
PYPI_API_TOKENValue: Paste your PyPI token
Click "Add secret"
To publish a new version:
Update the version number in
pyproject.tomlCreate a new release on GitHub or manually trigger the workflow
Debugging
Since MCP servers run over stdio, debugging can be challenging. For the best debugging experience, we strongly recommend using the MCP Inspector.
You can launch the MCP Inspector via npm with this command:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /path/to/your/ddg-mcp run ddg-mcpUpon launching, the Inspector will display a URL that you can access in your browser to begin debugging.
Available Tools
5 toolsddg-ai-chatC
Chat with DuckDuckGo AI
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Message or question to send to the AI | |
| model | No | AI model to use | gpt-4o-mini |
TDQS
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 but offers almost none. 'Chat with DuckDuckGo AI' doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what rate limits apply, whether conversations are persistent, or what the typical response format looks like. For a chat tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Chat with DuckDuckGo AI') and every word earns its place. This is a model of efficiency in tool description writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a chat tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of responses to expect, whether there are conversation contexts, what the AI's capabilities or limitations are, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably involves AI interaction, more context about the nature of the chat would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (keywords for the message, model selection from specific AI models). This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Chat with DuckDuckGo AI' clearly states the verb ('Chat') and resource ('DuckDuckGo AI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (image-search, news-search, text-search, video-search) by specifying it's for AI chat rather than search operations. However, it doesn't specify what kind of chat (e.g., conversational, Q&A) or the scope of the AI's capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 its sibling tools. It doesn't mention that this is for AI-powered conversations rather than traditional search operations, nor does it suggest alternatives like using text-search for factual queries. There's no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ddg-image-searchC
Search the web for images using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month, y=year) | |
| size | No | Image size | |
| color | No | Image color | |
| type_image | No | Image type | |
| layout | No | Image layout | |
| license_image | No | Image license type | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
TDQS
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 states the action ('Search') but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., image URLs, metadata, pagination), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the service and resource type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral traits like rate limits or errors, or usage context relative to siblings. For a search tool with rich parameters but no structured output or annotations, more descriptive context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('the web for images') with the specific service ('using DuckDuckGo'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'images' versus text, news, video, or AI chat searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest scenarios where image search is preferable over text, news, video, or AI chat searches. Usage is implied by the resource type but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ddg-news-searchC
Search for news articles using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
TDQS
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 states the tool searches for news articles but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with external dependencies, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical examples, so it doesn't enhance the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for news articles using DuckDuckGo'. It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('news articles'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddg-image-search and ddg-video-search by focusing on news. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ddg-text-search, which might also return news results, keeping it from 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.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like ddg-text-search or ddg-ai-chat, nor does it specify scenarios where news search is preferred over general text search or other media types. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ddg-text-searchC
Search the web for text results using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month, y=year) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
TDQS
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 states the tool performs a web search but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential side effects. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a web search with 5 parameters) and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples, so it doesn't add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 for text results') and the resource ('using DuckDuckGo'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like ddg-image-search or ddg-news-search, though the 'text results' wording implies a distinction from those other search types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 its siblings (ddg-ai-chat, ddg-image-search, ddg-news-search, ddg-video-search). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
ddg-video-searchC
Search for videos using DuckDuckGo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Search query keywords | |
| region | No | Region code (e.g., wt-wt, us-en, uk-en) | wt-wt |
| safesearch | No | Safe search level | moderate |
| timelimit | No | Time limit (d=day, w=week, m=month) | |
| resolution | No | Video resolution | |
| duration | No | Video duration | |
| license_videos | No | Video license type | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return |
TDQS
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 but only states the basic action ('Search for videos'). It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of video metadata). For a search tool with 8 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Search for videos using DuckDuckGo'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, result format), usage guidance relative to siblings, and any mention of output structure, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'keywords' as search query, 'region' with examples, enums for filters). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search for videos using DuckDuckGo', which includes a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('videos') with the search engine specified. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ddg-image-search or ddg-text-search beyond the 'videos' keyword, which is why it doesn't reach 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.
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 ddg-image-search or ddg-text-search. There's no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose based on media type: chat, images, news, text, and videos. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool for each search need.
All tools follow a consistent 'ddg-[media_type]-search' pattern, with the exception of 'ddg-ai-chat' which still fits the 'ddg-[function]' convention. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
Five tools is well-scoped for a DuckDuckGo search server, covering key search types (text, image, video, news) plus an AI chat feature. Each tool earns its place without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The tool set covers major search categories effectively, but there is a minor gap in specialized searches like maps or shopping, which are common in search engines. However, core workflows are well-supported, and agents can work around this limitation.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
MCP server for Google search results via SERP API
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides web search capabilities through DuckDuckGo, with additional features for content fetching and parsing.21,444MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides DuckDuckGo search functionality for Claude, enabling web search capabilities through a clean tool interface with rate limiting support.4171886MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI applications like Claude Desktop and Cursor IDE to perform web searches via DuckDuckGo's search engine.
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that exposes DuckDuckGo web and image search to MCP clients.2ISC
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/misanthropic-ai/ddg-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server