Skip to main content
Glama
riveterhq

Riveter MCP Server

Official
by riveterhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Quick search

quick_search

Run a synchronous web search and return structured results in the response, with optional date-range filters to narrow findings.

Instructions

quick search

Run a web search and get structured results back synchronously — the response is the run with the results already in output (no polling, no webhook). Optionally filter to a date range with date_start / date_end (format YYYY-MM-DD); if only date_start is given, date_end defaults to today.

The result is also stored on the run, so it stays re-fetchable at GET /runs/{id}/result.

For bulk searches — up to 100,000 per request, async with webhook_url support — use the legacy POST /v1/web_search endpoint.

Quick example

curl -X POST https://api.riveterhq.com/v1/quick_search \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"query": "latest OpenAI news"}'

Credit costs

  • 0.04 credits per search.

Example — A simple search: { "query": "latest OpenAI news" }

Example — A search filtered to a date range: { "query": "OpenAI GPT-4o mini", "date_start": "2024-07-01", "date_end": "2024-07-31" }

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe search query (simpler is better)
run_keyNoOptional idempotency key (becomes the run id "run_<run_key>")
date_endNoOptional end date filter, format YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today if date_start is set
date_startNoOptional start date filter, format YYYY-MM-DD
max_creditsNoCredit ceiling. Refused with 422 credit_cap_exceeded (nothing charged) when the estimate's maximum exceeds it.
estimate_costNoValidate and price the request without running or charging anything; the 200 response is the credit estimate (EstimateCostResult).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it is synchronous, requires no polling or webhook, stores the result for later re-fetch, and costs 0.04 credits per search. It does not itself cover every failure or auth detail, but the schema documents max_credits and estimate_cost, and the annotations already declare open-world and non-read-only behavior.

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 purpose and sync behavior are front-loaded well, but the description includes a redundant opening line and duplicative examples: the curl example is followed by two JSON examples that partly repeat the same request shapes. The content is useful, but some sentences and examples do not fully earn their place.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and a web-search operation, the description covers the key calling context: synchronous result delivery, result persistence, date filtering, bulk alternative, and credit cost. It does not detail the exact result object shape, but it explains that structured results appear in output and remain re-fetchable.

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 explains query, run_key, date filters, max_credits, and estimate_cost. The description restates the date filter format and default for date_end, but does not add much parameter meaning beyond the already complete schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: run a web search and return structured results synchronously. It also distinguishes this quick synchronous tool from the bulk asynchronous legacy endpoint, so the scope is clear without needing to open the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly routes bulk workloads to the legacy POST /v1/web_search endpoint and describes the quick_search case as a single synchronous search. It does not explicitly compare against other siblings such as search_agent or scrape, but the intended usage context is strong.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools