@semidark/mcp-litellm-searxng

Web Search

web_search

Execute web searches via a LiteLLM proxy to obtain ranked results with titles, URLs, snippets, and dates.

Instructions

Search the web using the LiteLLM proxy's configured search backend. Returns ranked search results with titles, URLs, snippets, and dates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "web_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query string
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of results to return (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions using a 'configured search backend' and describes the return format but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose and output. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the action.

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?

For a simple search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers core functionality well. It mentions the backend and return fields. However, it omits edge cases like empty results or errors, but this is acceptable for the simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. It does not explain query syntax or max_results behavior further.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'the web', and specifies what is returned (ranked results with titles, URLs, snippets, dates). There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is not needed.

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 or when not to use this tool, nor any alternatives mentioned. The description simply states what it does without context for decision-making.

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

web_searchA