mcp-server-freesearch

by wzj177

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct category (file, general, image, IT, map, music, news, science, social media, video), so there is no overlap. An agent can easily select the appropriate tool for the desired search type.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent naming pattern: 'free_' + category + '_search'. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count4/5
With 10 tools, the set covers a broad range of search categories without being excessive. The number is appropriate for a search-focused server, though it could be slightly trimmed if some categories are rarely used.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major search categories (web, images, news, videos, etc.) and some niche ones (IT, science, social media). It is missing common categories like shopping or jobs, but the overall breadth is good.
Average 2.5/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 18, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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 provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns text content with map search results, omitting details like rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but repeats parameter names and defaults that are already in the schema. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter list and focusing on behavior.
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 the tool has 5 parameters and no enum constraints, the description should provide more context about each parameter and example usage. The output schema exists but the description only vaguely mentions text content, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing defaults in Chinese but does not explain the meaning or valid values for parameters like safe_search or time_range.
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 is limited to '地图搜索' (map search), which is vague and does not specify a distinct verb or resource. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like free_general_search or free_image_search, leaving ambiguity about what exactly this tool does.
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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it provides no information on side effects, prerequisites, rate limits, or output behavior. The 'safe_search' and other parameters are unexplained.
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 short but fails to front-load a clear purpose. It is essentially a parameter list without an introductory sentence explaining the tool's function, wasting the opportunity for clarity.
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?
Given 5 parameters, zero annotations, and an output schema that is not leveraged, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's main function, leaving the agent without critical context to decide when and how to use it.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief Chinese explanations for each parameter (e.g., '搜索查询' for query), adding some meaning beyond the empty schema titles. However, explanations are minimal and some are vague.
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 lacks an explicit statement of what the tool does beyond the name 'free_science_search'. The docstring only lists parameters in Chinese and English with no verb or resource definition, making it unclear that it performs scientific searches.
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 is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like free_general_search or free_image_search. There are no exclusion criteria or context for usage.
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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, security, or what the 'safe_search' and 'time_range' parameters do. It only restates parameter names with defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with a bullet list, but it unnecessarily repeats the schema information without adding insights. It could be more concise by focusing on purpose and behavior.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and 9 siblings, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain the tool's role, parameter usage, or return format beyond 'text content'.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal value beyond listing parameter names and defaults already in the schema. There is a contradiction: safe_search type is 'int' in description but 'string' in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a 'comprehensive search' but does not explicitly define its scope (e.g., general web search) or how it differs from specialized siblings like free_news_search. The verb 'search' is clear, but the resource is vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many specialized search tools. The description lacks any indication of use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose alternatives.
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. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are structured (pagination, filtering). The return value is vaguely described as 'Text content with the IT search results.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a list of parameters with brief Chinese descriptions, which is somewhat structured. However, it repeats the parameter list pattern and could be more compact. Every sentence adds some value but lacks conciseness.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain result format, pagination, error handling, or any usage constraints beyond basic parameter fields.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. However, parameter descriptions are incomplete and contain contradictions: language default is 'auto' in schema but '中文' in description; safe_search is string in schema but described as int. This misleads the agent.
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 states '信息技术搜索' meaning IT search, and lists parameters typical for a search tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like free_general_search by focusing on IT topics, but lacks explicit detail on what IT domain covers.
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 other search siblings. There is no comparison or context about scenarios suited for IT search vs general or specialized searches.
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 only lists parameters and a generic return statement. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or whether the search is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes a parameter listing and return statement. It is not optimally structured; listing parameters in the description is redundant given the input schema. However, it is not overly verbose.
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?
The description fails to explain what kind of music is searched, what sources are used, or how results are structured. With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds little meaning beyond parameter names. It repeats labels like 'query' and 'safe_search' with defaults, and contradicts the schema: language default is 'auto' in schema but '默认中文' in description. This confuses rather than clarifies.
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 states '音乐搜索' (music search), clearly indicating it searches for music. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like free_image_search or free_video_search, though no elaboration on the specific source or scope.
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 free_general_search or free_social_media_search. The description provides no context for appropriate usage 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 provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Returns: Text content with the social media search results.' No disclosure of side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or read-only nature (though likely read-only). Minimal behavioral info.
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 and includes a parameter list in a docstring style. It is appropriately sized with no unnecessary words, though the structure is flat.
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?
With 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and only a vague return statement, the description is incomplete. It does not explain valid values for output_format, time_range, or safe_search, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 0%, so description adds value by explaining each parameter (e.g., '搜索查询' for query, '安全搜索等级' for safe_search). However, the explanations are basic translations/defaults and do not provide deep semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '社交媒体搜索' which translates to 'social media search', restating the tool name. It lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like 'free_general_search' or 'free_video_search', so the purpose is somewhat vague.
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 vs alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not mentioned in the description. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read/write nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The only hint is 'Returns: Text content with the video search results,' which minimally indicates the output type but offers no transparency into tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and lists parameters in a bullet-like format, making it easy to scan. However, it is slightly redundant with the schema and could be more concise by omitting parameter defaults already in schema. It is appropriately front-loaded with the tool's name in Chinese but lacks a clear summary of what the tool does.
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?
For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the output format (beyond 'Text content'), pagination, filtering behavior, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity and sibling tools, more details are needed for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides Chinese labels for each parameter (e.g., '搜索查询' for query, '安全搜索等级' for safe_search) and lists defaults, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks constraints or explanations for valid values (e.g., safe_search as string, time_range format), limiting semantic depth.
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 begins with '视频搜索' (video search) and lists parameters, clearly indicating the tool's purpose of searching videos. While it distinguishes from siblings by its name, it does not explicitly differentiate its capabilities from similar search tools (e.g., free_image_search, free_general_search). The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling context alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the output format but omits critical details such as data safety, rate limits, or any side effects. The minimal return description ('Text content') adds little value.
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 largely a parameter list repeated from the schema, lacking structure. It does not front-load key information; instead, it begins with a one-word title and then dumps parameters without a clear summary of the tool's function.
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 the complexity (5 parameters, sibling tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the results are structured, how to handle defaults, or how this tool compares to similar search tools.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides Chinese translations for each parameter (e.g., '搜索查询' for query), which adds some meaning beyond the name alone. However, the explanations are terse and do not elaborate on expected values or constraints.
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 begins with '图片搜索' which clearly indicates the tool performs image searches. The name 'free_image_search' reinforces this. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like free_general_search or free_video_search, missing an opportunity for clarity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely lists parameters without explaining the context or typical use cases.
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 lacks behavioral details such as search scope, limitations, or how results are obtained. The return type is vaguely described as 'text content', which is insufficient for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise but unstructured, with a blank line and informal 'Args:' section. It front-loads the tool name but could be more streamlined.
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 the presence of many sibling search tools and an output schema (not detailed), the description should clarify what makes file search distinct. It lacks behavior context and does not specify the nature of returned text, making it incomplete for effective selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides Chinese explanations for each parameter (e.g., '搜索查询' for query, '搜索语言，默认中文' for language), which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. Although allowed values are not specified, the descriptions cover all 5 parameters effectively.
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 explicitly states '文件搜索' (file search) and lists parameters that indicate a search operation. This clearly conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like free_image_search or free_news_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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are no explicit context cues or conditions for use, leaving the AI agent to infer based on the tool name alone.
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 any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data source, or result structure. It only states that it returns 'Text content', which is insufficient for an agent to understand potential side effects or limitations.
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 relatively concise, listing parameters in a clear Args/Returns format. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary prose, though the Args section could be more compact.
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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks important context: it does not clarify the output format beyond 'Text content', nor does it explain the meaning of parameters like 'time_range' or 'safe_search'. Although an output schema is indicated as present, the description does not leverage it to fill gaps.
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?
The description provides defaults and informal types for parameters, adding some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., language default '中文', safe_search default 1). However, there are conflicts with the schema (e.g., safe_search type is string in schema but described as int, language default differs). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but is not fully reliable.
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 starts with '新闻搜索' (news search), clearly indicating the tool's purpose as a news search engine. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'free_general_search' or 'free_image_search', which could lead to confusion about when to use this specific tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description only lists parameters without explaining the context or conditions for using news search over other search types.
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-server-freesearch MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-freesearch MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wzj177/mcp-server-freesearch/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wzj177/mcp-server-freesearch)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-freesearch MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wzj177/mcp-server-freesearch/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wzj177/mcp-server-freesearch)

shields.io Endpoint

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

[![mcp-server-freesearch MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglama.ai%2Fmcp%2Fservers%2Fwzj177%2Fmcp-server-freesearch%2Fbadges%2Fshields.json)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wzj177/mcp-server-freesearch)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/wzj177/mcp-server-freesearch'

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