Enables web searching using Google search results, returning structured data with titles, URLs, and descriptions without requiring API keys.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Web Search MCP Server search for latest Python 3.12 release notes"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables free web searching using Google search results, with no API keys required.
Search the web using Google search results
No API keys or authentication required
Returns structured results with titles, URLs, and descriptions
Configurable number of results per search
Related MCP server: search-mcp
Clone or download this repository
Install dependencies:
npm installBuild the server:
npm run buildAdd the server to your MCP configuration:
For VSCode (Claude Dev Extension):
{
"mcpServers": {
"web-search": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/web-search/build/index.js"]
}
}
}For Claude Desktop:
{
"mcpServers": {
"web-search": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/web-search/build/index.js"]
}
}
}The server provides a single tool named search that accepts the following parameters:
{
"query": string, // The search query
"limit": number // Optional: Number of results to return (default: 5, max: 10)
}Example usage:
use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "web-search",
tool_name: "search",
arguments: {
query: "your search query",
limit: 3 // optional
}
})Example response:
[
{
"title": "Example Search Result",
"url": "https://example.com",
"description": "Description of the search result..."
}
]Since this tool uses web scraping of Google search results, there are some important limitations to be aware of:
Rate Limiting: Google may temporarily block requests if too many searches are performed in a short time. To avoid this:
Keep searches to a reasonable frequency
Use the limit parameter judiciously
Consider implementing delays between searches if needed
Result Accuracy:
The tool relies on Google's HTML structure, which may change
Some results might be missing descriptions or other metadata
Complex search operators may not work as expected
Legal Considerations:
This tool is intended for personal use
Respect Google's terms of service
Consider implementing appropriate rate limiting for your use case
Feel free to submit issues and enhancement requests!
Search the web using Google (no API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 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 mentions 'no API key required,' which adds some context about authentication, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as rate limits, response format, error handling, or any constraints beyond the input schema. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and a key feature ('no API key required'). There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a web search function with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and operational constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with details like default values and constraints. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('search') and resource ('the web using Google'), making it immediately understandable. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'no API key required,' which implies ease of use but lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context about limitations. No sibling tools exist, so no comparison is possible, but the description still lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
searchWith only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is singular and clear, so an agent cannot misselect between multiple options.
A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against for patterns. The name 'search' is straightforward and appropriate for its function.
One tool is too few for a server named 'Web Search MCP Server', which suggests a broader scope like searching, filtering, or managing search results. A single search tool feels thin and limits functionality, making it borderline inappropriate for the implied domain.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for web search functionality. It only provides a basic search tool, missing obvious operations like filtering results, getting details, saving searches, or handling pagination, which are common in search domains and could lead to agent failures in complex tasks.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Search Google straight from your AI agent. Web results, images, videos, news, products, scholarly ar
GoogleSearch API: Fetch real-time Google Search results including title, links Ideal for serp api.
Provides AI assistants with access to Seltz's powerful Web Search capabilities.
Scrape Google search results with SERP data, ads, and knowledge panels
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/williamvd4/web-search'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
