Skip to main content
Glama
veniceai

Venice MCP Server

Official
by veniceai

Venice Web Search

venice_web_search

Search the web via Brave or Google and return structured results with titles, URLs, snippets, and dates. Access with x402 wallet auth or an API key.

Instructions

Search the web with Brave Search (default, Zero Data Retention) or Google Search (proxied and anonymized by Venice). Returns structured results with titles, URLs, snippets, and dates. Supports x402 wallet auth (no Venice account needed) and API key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
search_providerNobrave (default) uses Zero Data Retention; google is proxied/anonymized by Venice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
      Previous value: -500New value: +400
    • addedInput schema / properties / search_provider
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "brave (default) uses Zero Data Retention; google is proxied/anonymized by Venice.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "brave",
      +    "google"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: Zero Data Retention, proxying/anonymization, and that no Venice account is needed with x402 wallet auth. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false for a search, which would be worth clarifying given the sibling read tools.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the operation and provider default are front-loaded before the return-format and auth details. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to say results contain titles, URLs, snippets, and dates, and it documents both auth routes. Only the undocumented limit/query parameters keep it from being 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate, but 'limit' and 'query' get no mention. It does add provider trade-off framing (brave=ZDR, google=proxied/anonymized), though that largely restates the enum description already in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the web') plus the two backing providers, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling venice_web_scrape, which is the main ambiguity.

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?

It signals the Brave-is-default/Zero-Data-Retention choice and the two auth paths, which is implied usage guidance. But it never states when to pick this over venice_web_scrape or when the Google provider is preferable beyond a terse anonymization note.

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