A
licenseC
qualityD
maintenanceEasily find MCP servers using our MCP registry. Search with natural language.
1
5
MIT
MCP-Brave-Search
Integrates the Brave Search API to provide web search capabilities with filtering options, pagination controls, and content freshness settings.
Enables local search functionality to find businesses, restaurants, and services with detailed information, with smart fallback to web search when no results are found.
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., "@MCP-Brave-Searchfind the best Italian restaurants near me"
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.
Brave Search MCP Server
An MCP server implementation that integrates the Brave Search API, providing both web and local search capabilities.
Features
Web Search: General queries, news, articles, with pagination and freshness controls
Local Search: Find businesses, restaurants, and services with detailed information
Flexible Filtering: Control result types, safety levels, and content freshness
Smart Fallbacks: Local search automatically falls back to web when no results are found
Related MCP server: 1313
Tools
brave_web_search
Execute web searches with pagination and filtering
Inputs:
query(string): Search termscount(number, optional): Results per page (max 20)offset(number, optional): Pagination offset (max 9)
brave_local_search
Search for local businesses and services
Inputs:
query(string): Local search termscount(number, optional): Number of results (max 20)
Automatically falls back to web search if no local results found
Configuration
Getting an API Key
Sign up for a Brave Search API account
Choose a plan (Free tier available with 2,000 queries/month)
Generate your API key from the developer dashboard
Usage with Claude Desktop
Add this to your claude_desktop_config.json:
Docker
{
"mcpServers": {
"brave-search": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"-i",
"--rm",
"-e",
"BRAVE_API_KEY",
"mcp/brave-search"
],
"env": {
"BRAVE_API_KEY": "YOUR_API_KEY_HERE"
}
}
}
}NPX
{
"mcpServers": {
"brave-search": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@modelcontextprotocol/server-brave-search"
],
"env": {
"BRAVE_API_KEY": "YOUR_API_KEY_HERE"
}
}
}
}Usage with VS Code
For quick installation, use the one-click installation buttons below...
For manual installation, add the following JSON block to your User Settings (JSON) file in VS Code. You can do this by pressing Ctrl + Shift + P and typing Preferences: Open User Settings (JSON).
Optionally, you can add it to a file called .vscode/mcp.json in your workspace. This will allow you to share the configuration with others.
Note that the
mcpkey is not needed in the.vscode/mcp.jsonfile.
Docker
{
"mcp": {
"inputs": [
{
"type": "promptString",
"id": "brave_api_key",
"description": "Brave Search API Key",
"password": true
}
],
"servers": {
"brave-search": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"-i",
"--rm",
"-e",
"BRAVE_API_KEY",
"mcp/brave-search"
],
"env": {
"BRAVE_API_KEY": "${input:brave_api_key}"
}
}
}
}
}NPX
{
"mcp": {
"inputs": [
{
"type": "promptString",
"id": "brave_api_key",
"description": "Brave Search API Key",
"password": true
}
],
"servers": {
"brave-search": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-brave-search"],
"env": {
"BRAVE_API_KEY": "${input:brave_api_key}"
}
}
}
}
}Build
Docker build:
docker build -t mcp/brave-search:latest -f src/brave-search/Dockerfile .License
This MCP server is licensed under the MIT License. This means you are free to use, modify, and distribute the software, subject to the terms and conditions of the MIT License. For more details, please see the LICENSE file in the project repository.
Available Tools
2 toolsbrave_local_searchA
Searches for local businesses and places using Brave's Local Search API. Best for queries related to physical locations, businesses, restaurants, services, etc. Returns detailed information including:
Business names and addresses
Ratings and review counts
Phone numbers and opening hours Use this when the query implies 'near me' or mentions specific locations. Automatically falls back to web search if no local results are found.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Local search query (e.g. 'pizza near Central Park') | |
| count | No | Number of results (1-20, default 5) |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a search operation (implied read-only), specifies the data source (Brave's Local Search API), lists the type of information returned (business details, ratings, etc.), and mentions the fallback to web search. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some 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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return details in a bulleted list, and ends with behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with fallback), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, usage, returned data, and behavior. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of returned results) and error cases, which would be helpful for an agent to handle responses appropriately. This is a minor gap in an otherwise comprehensive description.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'count') with their types, descriptions, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints not already covered. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool's purpose: 'Searches for local businesses and places using Brave's Local Search API.' It specifies the resource (local businesses/places) and distinguishes it from its sibling 'brave_web_search' by focusing on physical locations. The description is specific and avoids tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Best for queries related to physical locations, businesses, restaurants, services, etc.' and 'Use this when the query implies 'near me' or mentions specific locations.' It also mentions an alternative behavior ('Automatically falls back to web search if no local results are found'), though not explicitly naming the sibling tool. This gives clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
brave_web_searchA
Performs a web search using the Brave Search API, ideal for general queries, news, articles, and online content. Use this for broad information gathering, recent events, or when you need diverse web sources. Supports pagination, content filtering, and freshness controls. Maximum 20 results per request, with offset for pagination.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (max 400 chars, 50 words) | |
| count | No | Number of results (1-20, default 10) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (max 9, default 0) |
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
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 discloses key behavioral traits: supports pagination, content filtering, and freshness controls; maximum 20 results per request; and offset for pagination. This covers operational limits and features beyond basic search, though it could add more on error handling or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 appropriately sized with three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose and ideal use cases, second provides usage context, third details behavioral traits. It avoids redundancy and is efficient, though could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors like pagination and limits. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what results look like) and error cases, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. It compensates well but has minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (query, count, offset). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'pagination' and 'maximum 20 results per request', which relate to count and offset, but does not provide additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'performs a web search using the Brave Search API', specifying the verb ('performs'), resource ('web search'), and technology ('Brave Search API'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'brave_local_search' by focusing on general web content rather than local results, though the distinction could be more explicit. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'ideal for general queries, news, articles, and online content' and 'for broad information gathering, recent events, or when you need diverse web sources'. It implies an alternative (the sibling 'brave_local_search') by emphasizing web content, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative directly, missing full explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: brave_local_search targets physical locations and businesses with local context, while brave_web_search handles general web content and information. Their descriptions explicitly differentiate use cases ('near me' vs. 'general queries'), eliminating any overlap or confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern: 'brave_' prefix followed by a descriptive term (local_search, web_search). This uniformity makes them easily recognizable as part of the same server and clearly indicates their function.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a search domain that could benefit from more specialized operations (e.g., image search, news search, or advanced filtering). While the tools cover core local and web search, the limited count may restrict agent flexibility in handling diverse search-related tasks.
Completeness3/5
The server covers basic local and web search functionalities, but there are notable gaps for a comprehensive search toolset. Missing operations include image/video search, news-specific search, autocomplete suggestions, or trend analysis, which could limit agents in fully addressing search-related queries.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing
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
An MCP server that used to create notes
MCP server registry — validated by live handshake, scored on reliability, monitored continuously.
Related MCP Servers
- Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables searching and retrieving detailed information about MCP servers from the official MCP registry. Provides tools to list servers with filtering options and get comprehensive details about specific servers.573MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server: is this GitHub repo still maintained? A verdict.1AGPL 3.0
Appeared in Searches
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/modelcontextprotocol/servers-archived'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server