Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
mzxrai

MCP Web Research Server

by mzxrai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

MCP Web Research Server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for web research.

Bring real-time info into Claude and easily research any topic.

Features

  • Google search integration

  • Webpage content extraction

  • Research session tracking (list of visited pages, search queries, etc.)

  • Screenshot capture

Related MCP server: MCP Web Research Server

Prerequisites

Installation

First, ensure you've downloaded and installed the Claude Desktop app and you have npm installed.

Next, add this entry to your claude_desktop_config.json (on Mac, found at ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "webresearch": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@mzxrai/mcp-webresearch@latest"]
    }
  }
}

This config allows Claude Desktop to automatically start the web research MCP server when needed.

Usage

Simply start a chat with Claude and send a prompt that would benefit from web research. If you'd like a prebuilt prompt customized for deeper web research, you can use the agentic-research prompt that we provide through this package. Access that prompt in Claude Desktop by clicking the Paperclip icon in the chat input and then selecting Choose an integration → webresearch → agentic-research.

Tools

  1. search_google

    • Performs Google searches and extracts results

    • Arguments: { query: string }

  2. visit_page

    • Visits a webpage and extracts its content

    • Arguments: { url: string, takeScreenshot?: boolean }

  3. take_screenshot

    • Takes a screenshot of the current page

    • No arguments required

Prompts

agentic-research

A guided research prompt that helps Claude conduct thorough web research. The prompt instructs Claude to:

  • Start with broad searches to understand the topic landscape

  • Prioritize high-quality, authoritative sources

  • Iteratively refine the research direction based on findings

  • Keep you informed and let you guide the research interactively

  • Always cite sources with URLs

Resources

We expose two things as MCP resources: (1) captured webpage screenshots, and (2) the research session.

Screenshots

When you take a screenshot, it's saved as an MCP resource. You can access captured screenshots in Claude Desktop via the Paperclip icon.

Research Session

The server maintains a research session that includes:

  • Search queries

  • Visited pages

  • Extracted content

  • Screenshots

  • Timestamps

Suggestions

For the best results, if you choose not to use the agentic-research prompt when doing your research, it may be helpful to suggest high-quality sources for Claude to use when researching general topics. For example, you could prompt news today from reuters or AP instead of news today.

Problems

This is very much pre-alpha code. And it is also AIGC, so expect bugs.

If you run into issues, it may be helpful to check Claude Desktop's MCP logs:

tail -n 20 -f ~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp*.log

Development

# Install dependencies
pnpm install

# Build the project
pnpm build

# Watch for changes
pnpm watch

# Run in development mode
pnpm dev

Requirements

  • Node.js >= 18

  • Playwright (automatically installed as a dependency)

Verified Platforms

  • macOS

  • Linux

License

MIT

Author

mzxrai

Available Tools

3 tools
search_googleC

Search Google for a query

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 Google') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what the output format is (since no output schema exists), or if it performs a live web search versus cached results. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 wasted words: 'Search Google for a query'. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results, links, snippets), any limitations (e.g., number of results, pagination), or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely involves external API calls or web interactions, more 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats the concept of a 'query' without elaborating on syntax, examples, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search Google for a query' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('Google'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of search this is (e.g., web search, image search, news search) and doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'visit_page', which might also involve Google. The description is functional but vague in scope.

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 'take_screenshot' or 'visit_page', nor does it specify contexts where this search is appropriate (e.g., for general information retrieval vs. navigating to a specific page). Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer when to apply it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

take_screenshotB

Take a screenshot of the current page

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 action ('take a screenshot') but doesn't explain what happens—e.g., whether it saves the screenshot, returns it as data, requires permissions, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action, which is ideal for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs an action like taking a screenshot. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how the screenshot is handled, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, as there are no parameters to describe, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 ('take') and target resource ('screenshot of the current page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'visit_page' or 'search_google', which serve different functions, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 or in what context it should be applied. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing a page to be loaded first, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

visit_pageC

Visit a webpage and extract its content

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
takeScreenshotNoWhether to take a screenshot
urlYesURL to visit

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions visiting and extracting content but fails to describe important traits: what 'extract content' means (HTML, text, metadata?), whether authentication is needed, rate limits, timeouts, or what happens with invalid URLs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external resources.

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 with just one sentence containing no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema that performs external web interactions, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'extract its content' returns, doesn't mention error conditions or limitations, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of web scraping/visiting operations, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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's purpose with specific verbs ('visit' and 'extract') and resource ('webpage content'). It distinguishes from sibling 'take_screenshot' by mentioning content extraction, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_google' which likely has different functionality.

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 'search_google' or 'take_screenshot'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_google finds web pages, visit_page loads and extracts content from a specific URL, and take_screenshot captures visual data from the current page. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (search_google, take_screenshot, visit_page) with clear, descriptive verbs that align with their actions. The naming is uniform and predictable across the set.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is a reasonable count for a web research server, covering core actions like searching, visiting, and capturing pages. It might feel slightly thin for broader research tasks (e.g., no navigation or interaction tools), but it is well-scoped for basic operations.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover key web research steps: search, visit, and screenshot. However, there are notable gaps such as no navigation tools (e.g., click, scroll) or interaction capabilities (e.g., fill forms), which could limit more complex research workflows. The surface is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches

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/mzxrai/mcp-webresearch'

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