MCP server providing web search, PDF reading, academic paper search, and content extraction tools with quality evaluation and site-specific rules
Server has 5 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant quality gaps. Tool names lack clear action verbs (Serper_web_search, DDGS_web_search are inconsistent; arxiv_search lacks verb). Descriptions are present but often generic or in Chinese without English translation for non-Chinese users. Parameter descriptions exist but lack detail on constraints, formats, and valid ranges. No documented output schemas. Error handling and recovery guidance absent. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.). Composition is reasonable (5 distinct search/fetch tools), but naming inconsistency and missing schema documentation are critical gaps.
DuckDuckGo web search with quality evaluation and result ranking
需要配置API,备用引擎。 参数: query: 搜索关键词。输入搜索引擎友好的自然查询语句 max_results: 返回最大结果数 (default 5)
学术搜索专用工具,搜索学术论文。 参数: query: 搜索关键词 max_results: 返回最大结果数 (default 5)
从 URL 获取网页内容,支持 HTML 解析、文本提取、JavaScript 渲染(SPA 检测)、站点规则应用、评论区提取
从 URL 下载并解析 PDF 文件,提取文本内容。 适用于 arXiv 论文 PDF 链接或其他公开 PDF 文档。 参数: pdf_url: PDF 文件的 URL 链接 max_pages: 最大读取页数 (默认 5,避免返回过多内容和超时) timeout: 下载超时时间 (秒,默认 30 秒)
Inconsistent tool naming convention. 'Serper_web_search' and 'DDGS_web_search' use different casing; 'arxiv_search' lacks action verb. Should be 'search_serper', 'search_ddgs', 'search_arxiv' for consistency and clarity.
No documented output schemas. Tools return results but LLMs cannot predict field names, types, or structure. Prevents downstream tool chaining and forces LLMs to parse unstructured responses.
Descriptions in Chinese without English fallback. 'Serper_web_search' description is entirely in Chinese; non-Chinese-speaking LLMs cannot understand when/why to use the tool. Descriptions should be in English or provide bilingual support.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 41 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Parameter descriptions lack constraint details. 'max_results' has no min/max bounds; 'timeout' has no guidance on reasonable values; 'pdf_url' has no format validation hint. LLMs will pass arbitrary values.
No error handling or recovery guidance. Tools lack descriptions of failure modes, retryability, or what to do if a search returns no results or a PDF fails to download.