Skip to main content
Glama
waldzellai

Exa Websets MCP Server

by waldzellai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The tools have overlapping purposes that create ambiguity. The 'websets_manager' tool claims to handle creating websets, searching within them, enhancing data, and setting up notifications, which directly overlaps with the functions described in 'websets_guide' (guidance on creating websets, searching content, enhancing data, and setting up notifications) and partially with 'web_search_exa' (searching). This makes it difficult for an agent to choose between them without confusion.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming conventions are mixed and not fully consistent. 'knowledge_graph' and 'web_search_exa' use snake_case, while 'websets_guide' and 'websets_manager' use a descriptive but inconsistent format with underscores. There is no clear verb_noun pattern, as names vary from noun phrases to compound terms, making the set readable but lacking a predictable structure.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on web content management and search. It is well-scoped for handling knowledge graphs, web searches, guidance, and management operations, though the overlap might suggest some consolidation could improve efficiency without being excessive or too sparse.

    Completeness3/5

    Inferring the domain as web content search and management with Exa's platform, the tool set covers key areas like search, knowledge graphs, and webset operations. However, there are notable gaps in lifecycle coverage, such as missing explicit update or delete tools for websets, and the overlap between 'websets_manager' and other tools creates redundancy rather than a complete CRUD surface, potentially leading to agent confusion in workflows.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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 are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or that the tool performs multiple mutation and query operations. The single sentence provides no insight beyond the tool's purpose.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices essential information. It lacks structure, such as bullet points or sections, and fails to earn its place by omitting critical details about operations and parameters.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    For a complex tool with 7 parameters, 9 enum operations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no information on return values, error handling, or how to use the diverse operations, leaving significant gaps.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the seven parameters. Properties like 'operation' (with 9 enum values) and others are left entirely to schema names, which are insufficient for correct usage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Maintain an onboard knowledge graph of webset results' is vague. It uses the generic verb 'maintain' without specifying the broad set of operations (create, delete, read, search, etc.) evident in the input schema. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings or clarify what 'webset results' are.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (web_search_exa, websets_guide, websets_manager). There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

    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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as sync/async nature, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal disclosure.

    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 short (3 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from structured formatting like bullet points.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    The tool is complex with many operations and nested parameters, but the description provides no details on how to use specific parameters or operations. Extremely incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The description does not explain any parameters; it only offers a high-level overview. With schema description coverage at 25%, the description fails to add meaning beyond the limited 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 manages websets, searches, enhancements, and notifications via Exa. It lists multiple operations, making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

    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?

    The description mentions it's simpler than using separate tools, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor comparison to sibling tools like knowledge_graph or web_search_exa.

    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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what the output format is. Only basic purpose is stated.

    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 two sentences, efficiently stating purpose and listing topics. No verbose or irrelevant content, though the topic list is somewhat redundant with the schema.

    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?

    For a simple guidance tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and available topics but lacks details on return format, usage context, or behavioral constraints. Could be more informative.

    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 a single parameter 'topic' having a description. The description lists topics that mirror the enum values but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

    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 tool provides guidance, examples, and workflows for using websets. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'guidance', and distinguishes from siblings like websets_manager (management) and web_search_exa (search).

    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 usage when you need guidance on websets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Lacks comparison to sibling tools.

    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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses real-time searching and scraping but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or behavior when no results. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

    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 two sentences, no fluff, covering the main behavioral aspects. It is well-structured but could be slightly more organized (e.g., separate lines). Still, it is efficient.

    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?

    For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers primary functionality and return content. However, it omits details like scraping mechanics, error handling, and data freshness. 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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'configurable result counts' (aligning with numResults) and mentions scraping, which is not reflected in parameters. Some extra context but not significantly beyond schema.

    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 tool performs real-time web searches using Exa AI and can scrape content from specific URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (knowledge_graph, websets_guide, websets_manager) which are not general web search tools, making purpose unambiguous.

    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 this is the general web search tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like knowledge_graph or websets_guide. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

    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

exa-mcp-server-websets MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

exa-mcp-server-websets 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/waldzellai/exa-mcp-server-websets'

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