Skip to main content
Glama
theriskus

mcp_web_search

by theriskus
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are mostly distinct: web_search for search results, web_fetch for static content, web_scrape for dynamic pages, open_url for a quick preview. However, open_url and web_fetch have overlapping functionality (both fetch a URL), which could cause slight confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Three tools use the 'web_' prefix (web_fetch, web_scrape, web_search), but open_url breaks the pattern. Verbs are inconsistent (open, fetch, scrape, search). A uniform naming convention like 'web_search', 'web_fetch', 'web_scrape', 'web_preview' would be clearer.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is an appropriate number for a web search MCP server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose (search, static fetch, dynamic scrape, quick preview), and no tool feels unnecessary. The count is well-scoped.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the main workflows: searching the web, retrieving content from static pages, and handling dynamic pages. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool for metadata extraction or advanced search filtering, but the core functionality is complete for typical usage.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions headless browser and returns, but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. Insufficient behavioral detail.

    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?

    Single sentence with verb, resource, and output list. Front-loaded, no waste.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Tool has 3 params and no output schema. Description explains return values vaguely but lacks details on output structure (e.g., preview format). Adequate but not fully complete.

    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?

    All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides, meeting baseline.

    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?

    Description clearly states action (open URL in headless browser) and outputs (title, status, preview). Distinguishes from sibling tools by implying browser rendering, but does not explicitly differentiate.

    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 to use this tool versus alternatives like web_fetch, web_scrape, or web_search. Lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the output (parsed HTML text, optional links) but omits error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only operation, this is insufficient.

    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?

    Single sentence with no redundancy. Front-loaded with core action and outcome. Every word is earned.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers basic functionality but lacks behavioral details and usage context. Minimal but adequate for a straightforward fetch operation.

    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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context that the output is text and links are optional, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

    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 clearly states the tool fetches a URL and returns parsed HTML text with optional links. It distinguishes from siblings like web_scrape by focusing on basic fetch and parse, but does not explicitly contrast with open_url or web_search.

    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 to use this tool versus alternatives (open_url, web_scrape, web_search). The description implies usage for simple retrieval but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output (titles, URLs, snippets) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, source credibility, freshness of results, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to trust the tool fully.

    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?

    The description is a single sentence, very concise and to the point. It could be slightly improved with structure (e.g., bullet points for output), but it is not overly verbose and carries its weight.

    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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should compensate by explaining result format, pagination, error conditions, or defaults. It only mentions returning 'titles, URLs, and snippets', which is incomplete for a search tool. Context is insufficient for an agent to correctly interpret results.

    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%, with 'query' described as 'Search query' and 'maxResults' as 'Maximum number of results (default 10)'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states 'Search the web and return results with titles, URLs, and snippets.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like open_url (opens a specific URL) and web_fetch (fetches content from a URL).

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies that this tool is for general web search, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., for browsing vs. fetching specific content). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions using Playwright (browser) and extracting content, but omits details like resource intensiveness, potential script execution, or what specific content is extracted (e.g., text vs. markup). Somewhat transparent but not fully detailed.

    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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and application. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what 'extract content' means (e.g., returns text, links, or HTML). It also does not mention potential pitfalls like timeouts or content limitations, leaving the agent somewhat under-informed.

    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?

    All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 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 clearly states it uses a browser to load pages with JavaScript support and extract content, specifically calling out dynamic/SPA sites, which distinguishes it from siblings like web_fetch (no JS) and web_search.

    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?

    The description explicitly recommends it 'Best for dynamic/SPA sites,' implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. Still, it provides clear context for selection.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-web-browser MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-web-browser MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/theriskus/mcp-web-browser'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server