DuckDuckGo MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Average 2.9/5 across 5 of 5 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
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

Behavior1/5
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 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
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 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.
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 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
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 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
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: '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.
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. 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.
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 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
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 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.
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 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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (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.
Parameters3/5
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.
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 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.
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 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.

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

Copy to your README.md:

[![ddg-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misanthropic-ai/ddg-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misanthropic-ai/ddg-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ddg-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misanthropic-ai/ddg-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misanthropic-ai/ddg-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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