Search the web for Google-like results and optionally fetch full page content, with filters for country, language, time, safe search, and result count.
Search the web with Google-like results and optional page content fetching
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gl | No | ||
| hl | No | ||
| num | No | ||
| tbs | No | ||
| safe | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| start | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| store_data | No | ||
| search_limit | No | ||
| proxy_country | No | ||
| proxy_enabled | No | ||
| return_format | No | ||
| fetch_page_content | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire burden. It discloses only that page fetching is optional; it says nothing about the fact that store_data writes results into Spider Cloud (a mutating side effect), nor about proxy usage, rate limits, or credential requirements. That is a meaningful gap for a 14-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably under-sized for the surface area it must cover, but there is no verbosity to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, one sentence is far short of complete. The agent lacks the information needed to choose between the search, scrape, links, and crawl siblings or to know what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 14 parameters and reported schema description coverage of 0%, the description must compensate, and it does not. The only parameter behavior it touches is fetch_page_content ("optional page content fetching"); geo/language, pagination (start, num, search_limit), tbs, safe, return_format, and the proxy/store flags are all left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ("Search the web") and adds the shape of the result ("Google-like results") plus the optional content-fetch behavior. However it never distinguishes itself from spider_scrape, spider_links, or spider_crawl, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the five sibling tools, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the phrase "optional page content fetching," which hints at a capability but not a selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.