Skip to main content
Glama
tom275275

Google Workspace MCP Server

by tom275275

search_custom

Perform a Google Custom Search with configurable filters for site, date, file type, language, and images. Get ranked results with titles, links, and snippets.

Instructions

Performs a search using Google Custom Search JSON API.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. q (str): The search query. Required. num (int): Number of results to return (1-10). Defaults to 10. start (int): The index of the first result to return (1-based). Defaults to 1. safe (Literal["active", "moderate", "off"]): Safe search level. Defaults to "off". search_type (Optional[Literal["image"]]): Search for images if set to "image". site_search (Optional[str]): Restrict search to a specific site/domain. site_search_filter (Optional[Literal["e", "i"]]): Exclude ("e") or include ("i") site_search results. date_restrict (Optional[str]): Restrict results by date (e.g., "d5" for past 5 days, "m3" for past 3 months). file_type (Optional[str]): Filter by file type (e.g., "pdf", "doc"). language (Optional[str]): Language code for results (e.g., "lang_en"). country (Optional[str]): Country code for results (e.g., "countryUS"). sites (Optional[List[str]]): List of sites/domains to restrict search to (e.g., ["example.com", "docs.example.com"]). When provided, results are limited to these sites.

Returns: str: Formatted search results including title, link, and snippet for each result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes
numNo
safeNooff
sitesNo
startNo
countryNo
languageNo
file_typeNo
search_typeNo
site_searchNo
date_restrictNo
user_google_emailYes
site_search_filterNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.14.3

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only search and states the output format, but it does not mention authentication prerequisites beyond the required email field, custom search engine configuration, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a well-organized Args block and a Returns line. Each parameter gets one focused line with useful detail; there is no filler. The length is proportional to the tool's 13 parameters.

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?

Parameter documentation is thorough and the return format is defined, which covers most of what an agent needs to call the tool. The main gap is the absence of any mention of the required Google auth state or the custom search engine context, especially given there is no annotation coverage and a large sibling toolset.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Every parameter is individually documented with type, default, meaning, and often concrete examples, such as date_restrict='d5', language='lang_en', and sites as a list of domains. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds substantial meaning beyond raw property names.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Performs a search using Google Custom Search JSON API.' It also specifies the return shape ('title, link, and snippet'), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_gmail_messages or search_drive_files by naming the custom web-search API.

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?

Usage is implied by the API name and the general search context, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over sibling search tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. There is no 'use this for web search, not Gmail/Drive/Docs' guidance.

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