Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
serper-search-mcp-server

serper-search-mcp-server

by smjahid012
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

resolve_links

Resolve google.com/goto redirect links from recent search results into real URLs using a search_id or up to 100 links; unresolved links stay as goto links and can be retried later.

Instructions

Turn google.com/goto redirect links from a recent search into real URLs via Serper /resolve (free, 0 credits). Requires exactly one of: search_id, or links. Pass the search_id a search result asked for, or a list of goto links. Right after a search one call takes ~20–30 s. Links not ready yet stay goto links; Serper then suggests a wait (often 90 s), which is only honoured if it fits in max_wait_seconds — otherwise call again later.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "resolve_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linksNogoogle.com/goto?url=… links to resolve (alternative to search_id, max 100).
search_idNosearch_id shown in a search result that still had goto links.
max_wait_secondsNoRetry within this budget when Serper says to wait (default 60).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses cost (0 credits), expected latency (~20–30 s right after a search), partial-success behavior (unresolved entries stay goto links), and retry semantics governed by max_wait_seconds. It omits what the response looks like and any failure mode when neither input is supplied.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: identity first, then input constraint, then timing/retry behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence about the suggested wait and max_wait_seconds is compressed enough to require a second read.

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 3-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraint, cost, latency, partial results, and retry policy. The remaining gap is the return shape — whether resolved URLs map back to the supplied order — which matters for a resolver tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint not encoded in the schema: exactly one of search_id or links must be given (required is empty and there is no oneOf). It also clarifies that max_wait_seconds only bounds whether Serper's suggested wait is honoured, which is more than the schema's 'retry within this budget' wording.

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?

States a specific verb and transformation: turn google.com/goto redirect links from a recent search into real URLs via Serper /resolve. It also names the mechanism (free, 0 credits) and is unmistakably distinct from the search_* siblings, since it post-processes links rather than retrieving them.

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?

Gives clear invocation conditions: call it right after a search, passing the search_id a search result asked for, or a list of goto links. It implies but never states when not to call it (e.g. when results already contain real URLs, or long after a search), and names no alternative tool.

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