Outscraper MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Google Search

google_search

Execute Google searches and retrieve results via Outscraper's API, supporting multiple queries, pagination, region, and language settings.

Instructions

Search Google with the documented /google-search endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tbs`	No	Optional Google search tbs parameter.
`skip`	No	Skip results.
`uule`	No	Optional Google UULE location string.
`async`	No	Deprecated compatibility flag. Prefer execution_mode.
`query`	Yes	One or more Google search queries.
`fields`	No	Specific fields to return.
`region`	No	Region code.
`webhook`	No	Optional webhook URL for async completion.
`language`	No	Language code.
`enrichment`	No	Optional documented enrichments.
`execution_mode`	No	Execution strategy. Use auto to let the MCP server choose between sync and async.
`pages_per_query`	No	Pages to fetch per query.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`async`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.5Sep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.2.3Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search Google.' It does not explain pagination behavior, whether async execution is possible, what happens with multiple queries, or any rate limiting or error conditions. The agent is left without critical operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-sentence description is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action. However, for a tool with 12 parameters and 26 sibling tools, this brevity reads as under-specification rather than effective trimming. It contains no filler but omits valuable context.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, async/sync execution modes, webhook support, multiple sibling tools) and zero annotations, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot decide when to invoke it, how it behaves, or how to configure it beyond reading the schema. The output schema helps but does not compensate for missing usage context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since every parameter already has a schema description, the tool definition meets the minimum viability threshold without needing additional prose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Google with the documented /google-search endpoint.' It clearly identifies the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like google_search_images or google_maps_search, so an agent may need to inspect other definitions to disambiguate.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling search tools (images, maps, businesses, etc.). There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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