SearXNG MCP Server
Provides web search, image search, and news search capabilities through a SearXNG instance, aggregating results from multiple search engines.
Click on "Deploy 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., "@SearXNG MCP Serversearch for the latest climate change research papers"
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.
SearXNG MCP Server
A bridge to use SearXNG as an MCP server from Claude Code.
Features
searxng_search: Web search with multiple engines
searxng_images: Image search
searxng_news: News search
Related MCP server: SearxNG MCP Server
Prerequisites
SearXNG instance running with JSON format enabled
Important: SearXNG's default configuration only allows HTML format. To use this MCP server, you must enable JSON format by mounting a custom configuration file.
First, create your configuration file from the example:
cp searxng-config/settings.yml.example searxng-config/settings.yml # Edit settings.yml to set your own secret_keyThen start SearXNG with the configuration:
# Using Docker (recommended) docker run -d \ -p 8080:8080 \ -v $(pwd)/searxng-config/settings.yml:/etc/searxng/settings.yml:ro \ -e SEARXNG_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8080/ \ searxng/searxng # Or install locally # See: https://docs.searxng.org/admin/installation.htmlThe
searxng-config/settings.yml.examplefile includes the necessary configuration to enable JSON format:use_default_settings: true search: formats: - html - json server: secret_key: "your-secret-key-here" limiter: false image_proxy: trueVerify SearXNG is running with JSON format enabled
curl "http://localhost:8080/search?q=test&format=json"If you get a
403 Forbiddenerror, the JSON format is not enabled. Make sure you mounted the configuration file correctly.
Installation
cd searxng-mcp-server
npm install
npm run buildClaude Code Configuration
Method 1: Using CLI (Recommended)
# Add to local scope (current project)
claude mcp add --transport stdio searxng -- node /path/to/searxng-mcp-server/dist/index.js
# Add to user scope (all projects)
claude mcp add --transport stdio searxng --scope user -- node /path/to/searxng-mcp-server/dist/index.jsTo add environment variables:
claude mcp add --transport stdio searxng \
--env SEARXNG_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8080 \
-- node /path/to/searxng-mcp-server/dist/index.jsMethod 2: Manual Configuration
Project scope (.mcp.json in project root):
{
"mcpServers": {
"searxng": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/searxng-mcp-server/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"SEARXNG_BASE_URL": "http://localhost:8080"
}
}
}
}User scope (~/.claude.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"searxng": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/searxng-mcp-server/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"SEARXNG_BASE_URL": "http://localhost:8080"
}
}
}
}Verify Installation
# List configured MCP servers
claude mcp list
# Inside Claude Code
/mcpAuto-approve Tool Calls (Optional)
By default, Claude Code asks for confirmation each time a SearXNG tool is called. To skip confirmations, add the following to ~/.claude/settings.json:
{
"permissions": {
"allow": [
"mcp__searxng__searxng_search",
"mcp__searxng__searxng_images",
"mcp__searxng__searxng_news"
]
}
}Environment Variables
Variable | Default | Description |
|
| SearXNG server URL |
Usage Examples
From Claude Code:
Web Search
Search for "Rust programming language features" using SearXNGImage Search
Find images of "Mount Fuji" using SearXNGNews Search
Get latest news about "AI developments" using SearXNGTroubleshooting
403 Forbidden error with JSON format
If you get a 403 Forbidden error when using format=json, the JSON format is not enabled in your SearXNG instance. Make sure you:
Mount the configuration file when starting Docker:
docker run -d \ -p 8080:8080 \ -v $(pwd)/searxng-config/settings.yml:/etc/searxng/settings.yml:ro \ -e SEARXNG_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8080/ \ searxng/searxngVerify the configuration includes JSON format:
docker exec <container_id> grep -A 3 "formats" /etc/searxng/settings.yml
Cannot connect to SearXNG
# Check if SearXNG is running
curl "http://localhost:8080/search?q=test&format=json"
# If not running (Docker) - make sure to mount the config file
docker run -d \
-p 8080:8080 \
-v $(pwd)/searxng-config/settings.yml:/etc/searxng/settings.yml:ro \
-e SEARXNG_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8080/ \
searxng/searxngNo results returned
SearXNG aggregates results from multiple search engines. If no results are returned:
Check if your SearXNG instance has engines enabled
Try specifying engines:
engines: "google,bing,duckduckgo"Check SearXNG logs for errors
MCP server not showing up
# Verify server is registered
claude mcp list
# Check server health
claude mcp get searxngLicense
MIT
Available Tools
3 toolssearxng_imagesB
Search for images using SearXNG. Returns image results with URLs and thumbnails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The image search query | |
| engines | No | Comma-separated engine names to use | |
| language | No | Search language (e.g., 'en', 'ja') | |
| pageno | No | Page number (default: 1) |
TDQS
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 mentions that the tool 'Returns image results with URLs and thumbnails,' which adds some context about output format. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or other behavioral traits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It consists of two concise sentences that earn their place by stating the action and output. There is zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter nuances. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it provides a basic overview.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameters (query, engines, language, pageno). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 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.
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 images using SearXNG' specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (searxng_news, searxng_search) by focusing on images, though it doesn't explicitly mention the distinction. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 when to choose this over searxng_search or searxng_news, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose 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.
searxng_newsB
Search for news articles using SearXNG. Returns recent news with titles, URLs, and summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The news search query | |
| engines | No | Comma-separated engine names to use | |
| language | No | Search language (e.g., 'en', 'ja') | |
| pageno | No | Page number (default: 1) |
TDQS
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 mentions 'Returns recent news' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and parameter nuances. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does mention titles, URLs, and summaries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameters (query, engines, language, pageno). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 SearXNG' specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('news articles'), and 'Returns recent news with titles, URLs, and summaries' adds output details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'searxng_images' and 'searxng_search' by focusing on news, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 mentions 'news articles' but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., breaking news, topic monitoring) or contrast with siblings like 'searxng_search' for general web searches. Usage is implied by the context 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.
searxng_searchB
Search the web using SearXNG. Returns web search results with titles, URLs, and snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query | |
| categories | No | Comma-separated categories: general, images, news, videos, music, files, it, science, social media | |
| engines | No | Comma-separated engine names to use (e.g., 'google,bing,duckduckgo') | |
| language | No | Search language (e.g., 'en', 'ja', 'de') | |
| pageno | No | Page number (default: 1) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format ('titles, URLs, and snippets') but lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or result pagination beyond the 'pageno' parameter. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential return details, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and return format but lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits) and doesn't compensate for the absence of output schema or annotations, leaving gaps for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 the web using SearXNG' specifies the verb (search) and resource (web via SearXNG). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'web search results' (vs. images or news), though not explicitly naming alternatives. However, it lacks full sibling differentiation details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for general web searches, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'searxng_images' or 'searxng_news'. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided, leaving usage context partially inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
searxng_images - First observed
searxng_news - First observed
searxng_search
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different content types: images, news articles, and general web search. The descriptions specify different result formats (thumbnails vs. summaries vs. snippets), making them easily distinguishable with no overlap.
All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with 'searxng_' prefix and consistent snake_case: searxng_images, searxng_news, searxng_search. The naming is completely predictable and uniform throughout the set.
With only 3 tools, the set feels somewhat thin for a search server, potentially limiting functionality. While it covers basic search types, more specialized operations (e.g., video search, advanced filters) might be missing, making it borderline minimal.
The tools provide good coverage for core search functionality across three major content types. However, there are minor gaps such as lack of video search, advanced query parameters, or result filtering tools that could enhance the search experience.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Provides AI assistants with access to Seltz's powerful Web Search capabilities.
Search Google straight from your AI agent. Web results, images, videos, news, products, scholarly ar
Web search, news, page retrieval, sitemaps, and trending topics through Search1API.
Multi-engine search for AI agents. Trust scoring, local corpus, MCP-native. Self-hostable, BYOK.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform privacy-respecting web searches through SearXNG, with support for multiple search engines, categories, and advanced filtering options.26-
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables privacy-respecting web, image, video, and news searches through SearxNG metasearch engine, with options for URL fetching and time filtering.596 PyPI-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables web search and content scraping from multiple engines via a local SearXNG instance, allowing AI assistants to retrieve and extract web content.1-
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables private, free web searches through a self-hosted SearXNG instance, replacing default search tools without API keys, rate limits, or third-party tracking.1-