Skip to main content
Glama
yigitkonur

Research Powerpack MCP

by yigitkonur

web_search

Searches up to 100 keywords in parallel via Google for comprehensive research. Use 5-7 diverse angles to get multiple perspectives.

Instructions

🔥 WEB SEARCH - MINIMUM 3 KEYWORDS, RECOMMENDED 5-7

This tool searches up to 100 keywords IN PARALLEL via Google. Using 1-2 keywords = wasting the tool's parallel search power!

Results Budget: 10 results per keyword, all searches run in parallel.

  • 3 keywords = 30 results (minimum)

  • 7 keywords = 70 results (RECOMMENDED)

  • 100 keywords = 1000 results (comprehensive)

7-Perspective Keyword Formula - Each keyword targets a DIFFERENT angle:

  1. Direct/Broad: "[topic]" Example: "React state management"

  2. Specific/Technical: "[topic] [technical term]" Example: "React useReducer vs Redux"

  3. Problem-Focused: "[topic] issues/debugging/problems" Example: "React state management performance issues"

  4. Best Practices: "[topic] best practices [year]" Example: "React state management best practices 2024"

  5. Comparison: "[A] vs [B]" Example: "React state management libraries comparison"

  6. Tutorial/Guide: "[topic] tutorial/guide" Example: "React state management tutorial"

  7. Advanced: "[topic] patterns/architecture large applications" Example: "React state management patterns large applications"

Search Operators with Examples:

  • site:domain.com - Search within specific site Example: "React hooks" site:github.com → React hooks repos on GitHub

  • "exact phrase" - Match exact phrase Example: "Docker OOM" site:stackoverflow.com → exact error discussions

  • -exclude - Exclude term from results Example: React state management -Redux → find alternatives to Redux

  • filetype:pdf - Find specific file types Example: React tutorial filetype:pdf → downloadable guides

  • OR - Match either term Example: React OR Vue state management → compare frameworks

Keyword Patterns by Use Case:

Technology Research: ["PostgreSQL vs MySQL performance 2024", "PostgreSQL best practices production", "\"PostgreSQL\" site:github.com stars:>1000", "PostgreSQL connection pooling", "PostgreSQL vs MongoDB use cases"]

Problem Solving: ["Docker container memory leak debugging", "Docker memory limit not working", "\"Docker OOM\" site:stackoverflow.com", "Docker memory optimization best practices"]

Comparison Research: ["Next.js vs Remix performance", "Next.js 14 vs Remix 2024", "\"Next.js\" OR \"Remix\" benchmarks", "Next.js vs Remix developer experience"]

Example: ❌ BAD: {"keywords": ["React"]} → 1 vague keyword, no operators, no diversity

✅ GOOD: {"keywords": ["React state management best practices", "React useReducer vs Redux 2024", "React Context API performance", "Zustand React state library", "\"React state\" site:github.com", "React state management large applications", "React global state alternatives -Redux"]} → 7 diverse angles with operators

Pro Tips:

  1. Use 5-7 keywords minimum - Each reveals different perspective

  2. Add year numbers - "2024", "2025" for recent content

  3. Use search operators - site:, "exact", -exclude, filetype:

  4. Vary specificity - Mix broad + specific keywords

  5. Include comparisons - "vs", "versus", "compared to", "OR"

  6. Target sources - site:github.com, site:stackoverflow.com

  7. Add context - "best practices", "tutorial", "production", "performance"

  8. Think parallel - Each keyword searches independently

Workflow: web_search → sequentialthinking (evaluate which URLs look promising) → scrape_links (MUST scrape promising URLs - that's where real content is!) → sequentialthinking (evaluate scraped content) → OPTIONAL: web_search again if gaps found → synthesize

Why this workflow works:

  • Search results reveal new keywords you didn't think of

  • Scraped content shows what's actually useful vs what looked good

  • Thinking between tool calls prevents tunnel vision

  • Iterative refinement = comprehensive coverage

CRITICAL:

  • ALWAYS scrape after web_search - that's where the real content is!

  • ALWAYS think between tool calls - evaluate and refine!

  • DON'T stop after one search - iterate based on learnings!

FOLLOW-UP: Use scrape_links to extract full content from promising URLs!

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsYesArray of search keywords (MINIMUM 3, RECOMMENDED 5-7, MAX 100). Each keyword runs as a separate Google search in parallel. Use diverse keywords covering different angles for comprehensive results.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses parallel execution, results budget (10 per keyword), critical workflow step (must scrape after search), and that search results are not full content. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but given the read-only nature, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with headings, emojis, and examples, but it is overly verbose. Key points like minimum keywords are repeated multiple times. While front-loaded, the length could be reduced without losing value.

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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the workflow and the need to scrape for full content. It implies the output is a list of results with URLs, but does not formally describe the response structure. This is adequate for practical use.

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?

The schema describes the 'keywords' parameter with min and max ranges. The description adds substantial value: minimum 3 keywords, recommended 5-7, 7-perspective formula, search operators, and use-case-specific patterns. This far exceeds the schema's description.

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's purpose: 'searches up to 100 keywords IN PARALLEL via Google'. It provides specific verb (search), resource (Google), and scope (parallel keywords). The extensive examples further clarify its function.

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 provides detailed usage guidelines, including minimum keywords, keyword formulas, and search operators. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like deep_research or search_reddit, which is a gap in tool selection advice.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/yigitkonur/research-powerpack-mcp'

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