Skip to main content
Glama
netixc

SearXNG MCP Server

research_topic

Conduct comprehensive research by automatically searching multiple engines and sources, then analyzing and cross-referencing results to validate information and create detailed briefings.

Instructions

Deep research with multiple searches and source validation.

Use this when:

  • User wants comprehensive research or briefing

  • Need to validate information across multiple sources

  • Looking for in-depth analysis

  • User asks to "research", "investigate", or "give me a briefing"

This tool runs 2-6 searches automatically using different strategies:

  • Searches multiple engines (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Wikipedia)

  • Searches both general web and news sources

  • Deduplicates results across all searches

  • Returns 15-50 UNIQUE sources depending on depth

Perfect for creating comprehensive briefings with validated information.

Parameters: query* - Research topic depth - Research thoroughness: • "quick" - 2 searches, ~15 unique sources • "standard" - 4 searches, ~30 unique sources (recommended) • "deep" - 6 searches, ~50 unique sources

CRITICAL - After receiving sources, you MUST:

  1. Read and analyze ALL sources provided (titles, URLs, content snippets)

  2. Cross-reference claims across multiple sources

  3. Identify facts confirmed by many sources (high confidence)

  4. Note contradictions or single-source claims (lower confidence)

  5. Synthesize findings into a comprehensive briefing with: • Executive summary of key findings • Main facts/developments (note how many sources confirm each) • Contradictions or uncertainties • Source quality assessment (which engines found what)

  6. DO NOT just list the sources - you must analyze, validate, and synthesize them into actionable intelligence

Returns: Research briefing with analyzed, validated, cross-referenced information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesResearch topic or question
depthNoResearch depthstandard

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the research_topic tool in the SearchTools class. Performs multiple searches based on specified depth, deduplicates results, formats raw source material, and provides instructions for further analysis.
    def research_topic(
        self,
        query: str,
        depth: Literal["quick", "standard", "deep"] = "standard"
    ) -> List[TextContent]:
        """Deep research with multiple searches and deduplication.
    
        Performs multiple searches with different strategies to gather
        comprehensive information from diverse sources. Automatically
        deduplicates results.
    
        Args:
            query: Research topic
            depth: Research depth
                - quick: 2 searches, ~15 unique results
                - standard: 4 searches, ~30 unique results
                - deep: 6 searches, ~50 unique results
    
        Returns:
            Deduplicated and aggregated research results
        """
        self.logger.info(f"Starting {depth} research on: {query}")
    
        all_results = []
        search_strategies = []
    
        # Define search strategies based on depth
        if depth == "quick":
            search_strategies = [
                {"category": "general", "engines": None},
                {"category": "news", "engines": None},
            ]
            max_per_search = 10
        elif depth == "standard":
            search_strategies = [
                {"category": "general", "engines": "google,bing"},
                {"category": "general", "engines": "duckduckgo,brave"},
                {"category": "news", "engines": None},
                {"category": "general", "engines": "wikipedia"},
            ]
            max_per_search = 10
        else:  # deep
            search_strategies = [
                {"category": "general", "engines": "google,bing"},
                {"category": "general", "engines": "duckduckgo,brave"},
                {"category": "news", "engines": "google,bing"},
                {"category": "news", "engines": "duckduckgo"},
                {"category": "general", "engines": "wikipedia"},
                {"category": "general", "engines": None},  # All engines
            ]
            max_per_search = 15
    
        # Execute all searches
        for strategy in search_strategies:
            try:
                results = self._search(
                    query,
                    category=strategy["category"],
                    engines=strategy["engines"]
                )
                all_results.extend(results.get("results", [])[:max_per_search])
            except Exception as e:
                self.logger.warning(f"Search strategy failed: {e}")
                continue
    
        # Deduplicate
        unique_results = self._deduplicate_results(all_results)
    
        # Format output - present as raw material to analyze, not numbered references
        output = f"🔬 RESEARCH DATA for analysis: {query}\n"
        output += f"📊 {len(unique_results)} unique sources gathered from {len(search_strategies)} search strategies\n\n"
        output += f"{'='*80}\n"
        output += f"RAW SOURCE MATERIAL (analyze and synthesize - do NOT list to user):\n"
        output += f"{'='*80}\n\n"
    
        for result in unique_results[:25]:
            output += f"• **{result.get('title', 'No title')}**\n"
            output += f"  URL: {result.get('url', '')}\n"
            if result.get('content'):
                content = result['content'][:100] + "..." if len(result['content']) > 100 else result['content']
                output += f"  Content: {content}\n"
    
            if result.get('publishedDate'):
                output += f"  Date: {result['publishedDate']}\n"
    
            output += "\n"
    
        if not unique_results:
            output += "No results found. Try a different query.\n"
    
        output += f"\n{'='*80}\n"
        output += f"⚠️  YOUR TASK: ANALYZE & SYNTHESIZE (NOT list sources!)\n"
        output += f"{'='*80}\n\n"
        output += f"You have {min(len(unique_results), 25)} sources above as RAW MATERIAL.\n\n"
        output += f"REQUIRED ANALYSIS PROCESS:\n"
        output += f"1. Read all source titles and content snippets above\n"
        output += f"2. Extract key claims and facts from the content\n"
        output += f"3. Cross-reference: What do MULTIPLE sources say? (HIGH confidence)\n"
        output += f"4. What's only in ONE source? (LOW confidence - note as unverified)\n"
        output += f"5. Any contradictions between sources? (flag for user)\n\n"
        output += f"REQUIRED OUTPUT FORMAT:\n"
        output += f"- Executive summary (2-3 sentences)\n"
        output += f"- Key findings with confidence indicators:\n"
        output += f"  ✓ HIGH (5+ sources agree)\n"
        output += f"  ~ MEDIUM (2-4 sources)\n"
        output += f"  ? LOW (single source only)\n"
        output += f"- Contradictions/uncertainties if any\n"
        output += f"- Brief conclusion\n\n"
        output += f"DO NOT output source URLs or numbered lists - synthesize into narrative!\n"
        output += f"{'='*80}\n"
    
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=output)]
  • MCP tool registration for 'research_topic'. Uses @mcp.tool decorator with detailed description reference and defines input parameters with Pydantic validation via Annotated types, delegating execution to SearchTools instance.
    @self.mcp.tool(description=RESEARCH_TOPIC_DESC)
    def research_topic(
        query: Annotated[str, Field(description="Research topic or question")],
        depth: Annotated[Literal["quick", "standard", "deep"], Field(description="Research depth")] = "standard"
    ):
        return self.search_tools.research_topic(query, depth)
  • Detailed description string for the research_topic tool, used in MCP registration. Includes comprehensive usage guidelines, parameter descriptions, depth options, and critical instructions for source analysis and synthesis.
    RESEARCH_TOPIC_DESC = """Deep research with multiple searches and source validation.
    
    Use this when:
    - User wants comprehensive research or briefing
    - Need to validate information across multiple sources
    - Looking for in-depth analysis
    - User asks to "research", "investigate", or "give me a briefing"
    
    This tool runs 2-6 searches automatically using different strategies:
    - Searches multiple engines (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Wikipedia)
    - Searches both general web and news sources
    - Deduplicates results across all searches
    - Returns 15-50 UNIQUE sources depending on depth
    
    Perfect for creating comprehensive briefings with validated information.
    
    Parameters:
    query* - Research topic
    depth - Research thoroughness:
      • "quick" - 2 searches, ~15 unique sources
      • "standard" - 4 searches, ~30 unique sources (recommended)
      • "deep" - 6 searches, ~50 unique sources
    
    CRITICAL - After receiving sources, you MUST:
    1. Read and analyze ALL sources provided (titles, URLs, content snippets)
    2. Cross-reference claims across multiple sources
    3. Identify facts confirmed by many sources (high confidence)
    4. Note contradictions or single-source claims (lower confidence)
    5. Synthesize findings into a comprehensive briefing with:
       • Executive summary of key findings
       • Main facts/developments (note how many sources confirm each)
       • Contradictions or uncertainties
       • Source quality assessment (which engines found what)
    6. DO NOT just list the sources - you must analyze, validate, and synthesize them into actionable intelligence
    
    Returns: Research briefing with analyzed, validated, cross-referenced information"""
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by detailing behavioral traits: it runs 2-6 searches automatically using multiple engines and sources, deduplicates results, returns 15-50 unique sources based on depth, and includes critical post-processing steps like cross-referencing and synthesis. This provides rich context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameters, critical instructions, returns) and front-loaded key information. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though some sentences in the 'CRITICAL' section could be more concise without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-search research with validation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, detailed behavior, parameter semantics, and explicit post-processing requirements, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke and use the tool 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'depth' parameter's semantics: mapping 'quick,' 'standard,' and 'deep' to specific search counts and source ranges, with 'standard' recommended. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum and description.

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 performs 'deep research with multiple searches and source validation,' specifying the verb ('research') and resource ('sources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'search_media' by emphasizing comprehensive, multi-source validation rather than simple queries or media-specific searches.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for 'comprehensive research or briefing,' 'validate information across multiple sources,' 'in-depth analysis,' or when users ask to 'research,' 'investigate,' or 'give me a briefing.' It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on multi-engine, validated research rather than single searches.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/netixc/SearxngMCP'

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