Skip to main content
Glama
yuki-yano

Kagi MCP

by yuki-yano
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is for fetching search results from queries, and the other is for summarizing content from URLs. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with the prefix 'kagi_' followed by a descriptive verb_noun format (search_fetch and summarizer). This consistency aids in predictability and readability.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a search and summarization domain, as it lacks operations like advanced search filtering, result management, or summarization customization. This minimal set may limit agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers basic search and summarization but has significant gaps: no tools for updating or deleting search results, handling search history, or managing summarization settings. This incompleteness could lead to agent failures in more complex scenarios.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 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
    • No stable releases found
    • 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API and document type support, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, length). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

    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?

    The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and capabilities without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about the tool's purpose and scope.

    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 of a summarization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error conditions, performance characteristics, and integration details. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

    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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, edge cases, or usage tips). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

    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's purpose: 'Summarize content from a URL using the Kagi Summarizer API' with a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('content from a URL'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'kagi_search_fetch' by focusing on summarization rather than search/fetch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate the API from other summarization tools beyond mentioning Kagi.

    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 some implied usage context by stating it can 'summarize any document type (text webpage, video, audio, etc.)', which suggests when to use it (for diverse content types). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No comparison with the sibling tool 'kagi_search_fetch' is provided.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that 'Results are from all queries given' and 'They are numbered continuously, so that a user may be able to refer to a result by a specific number,' which adds useful context about result aggregation and numbering. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

    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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidelines, and explaining result formatting. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. A slight improvement could be made by combining the last two sentences for even tighter structure.

    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?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (search API with result aggregation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose, usage triggers, and result numbering, but lacks details about return format, error cases, rate limits, or how results from multiple queries are integrated. This is minimally viable but has clear 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'queries' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema description ('One or more concise, keyword-focused search queries'). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

    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's purpose: 'Fetch web results based on one or more queries using the Kagi Search API.' It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('web results'), and method ('Kagi Search API'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'kagi_summarizer' beyond the general search focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides clear usage context: 'Use for general search and when the user explicitly tells you to 'fetch' results/information.' This gives practical guidance on when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling summarizer tool, which keeps it from a score of 5.

    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

kagi-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

kagi-mcp 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/yuki-yano/kagi-mcp'

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