Skip to main content
Glama
nacho4d

mcp-web-search

by nacho4d
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_list handles web searches returning ranked results, while access_site fetches the content of a specific URL. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (access_site, search_list), using clear verbs and nouns. Strong naming convention.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 2 tools, the set is minimal but appropriately scoped for a web search server. It covers the core actions (searching and fetching) without unnecessary redundancy, though slightly thin.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the essential web search workflow: searching and retrieving page content. Missing advanced features like cached results or filtering, but no critical gaps for basic use.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 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

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions using DuckDuckGo and returning ranked results, but lacks details on rate limits, query limitations, result count, or error handling. Minimal behavioral context.

    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 short and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a structured Args/Returns format, but the Args section is redundant with the schema.

    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 search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the search engine and return fields. However, it omits potential issues like pagination, result limits, or authentication, which are relevant for an agent.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The description only repeats the schema's parameter name and type ('query' as a string). With 0% schema description coverage, it does not compensate by adding syntax, examples, or constraints.

    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 searches the web using DuckDuckGo and returns ranked results. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'access_site' which likely accesses a site, not search.

    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 versus the sibling 'access_site'. No exclusions or context provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions redirect-following and return format (plain text, JSON with metadata) but omits error handling, size limits, authentication needs, or whether it modifies anything. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

    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 concise: one sentence for the main action, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No extraneous information, and the core action is front-loaded.

    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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the return format), the description covers the essential: tool purpose, parameter, and high-level return. Minor omissions (error handling, restrictions) are acceptable for this simple fetch tool.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It restates 'url: The URL to fetch' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property name. No format constraints, examples, or further clarification are provided.

    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 action ('Fetch the contents of a URL'), the resource ('URL'), and details like following redirects and returning plain text. This distinctly differentiates from the sibling tool 'search_list', which likely searches rather than fetches.

    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?

    The description implies usage (fetch a URL) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'search_list' or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

    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

mcp-web-search MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-web-search MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/nacho4d/mcp-web-search'

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