ScrapeUnblocker
Server Details
Fetch any web page's fully rendered HTML, AI-parsed structured JSON, or Google search results through ScrapeUnblocker's anti-bot scraping API (bypasses Cloudflare, DataDome, PerimeterX, Akamai). Bring your own API key.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: fetch_html returns raw HTML, fetch_parsed returns structured JSON, and google_search performs a search. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (fetch_html, fetch_parsed, google_search).
Three tools is a reasonable count for a focused scraping API, covering core functionality without being sparse or excessive.
The set covers fetching raw HTML, parsed data, and Google search, but lacks features like custom headers, session management, or other search engines, leaving notable gaps for advanced use cases.
Available Tools
3 toolsfetch_htmlFetch page HTMLARead-onlyInspect
Fetch the fully rendered HTML of any web page through the ScrapeUnblocker API (https://developers.scrapeunblocker.com), bypassing anti-bot protection (Cloudflare, DataDome, PerimeterX, Akamai, Shape). Use when a normal fetch is blocked (403/429, captcha) or the page needs a real browser. Returns raw HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to fetch (http/https). | |
| wait_value | No | The selector/expression paired with wait_method. | |
| wait_method | No | Optional render-wait: 'css' selector or 'js' expression. | |
| proxy_country | No | Optional ISO country code to route through, e.g. 'US'. | |
| sleep_seconds | No | Extra seconds to wait after load. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations readOnlyHint and openWorldHint are present, reducing the burden. The description adds specifics about bypassing Cloudflare, DataDome, etc., and returning raw HTML. However, it does not mention potential side effects like API costs, rate limits, or timeout behavior.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, immediately followed by usage guidance, then return type. Highly efficient.
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 moderate complexity (5 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, and return type adequately. It could mention that the HTML may be large or contain scripts, but overall it is sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (fully rendered HTML of any web page). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the ScrapeUnblocker API and bypassing anti-bot protection, which differentiates it from fetch_parsed or google_search.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a normal fetch is blocked (403/429, captcha) or the page needs a real browser.' This provides clear context and alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetch_parsedFetch AI-parsed page dataARead-onlyInspect
Fetch a web page through the ScrapeUnblocker API (https://developers.scrapeunblocker.com) and return AI-parsed structured JSON instead of raw HTML (product details, article content, listings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to fetch and parse. | |
| proxy_country | No | Optional ISO country code, e.g. 'US'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context about using the ScrapeUnblocker API and returning parsed JSON, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or what happens on failure.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise without being overly terse, though breaking into multiple sentences could improve readability.
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?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint, the description adequately explains the input (URL) and output (structured JSON). It could mention that output format depends on page type, but overall it is sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb 'Fetch', the resource 'web page', and the output 'AI-parsed structured JSON', which distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_html (raw HTML) and google_search (search results).
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 phrase 'instead of raw HTML' implies when to use this tool versus fetch_html, but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance for google_search are provided. Usage context is clear, but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
google_searchGoogle search resultsARead-onlyInspect
Run a Google search through the ScrapeUnblocker API (https://developers.scrapeunblocker.com) and return organic results as JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | The search query. | |
| proxy_country | No | Optional ISO country code to search from, e.g. 'US'. | |
| pages_to_check | No | How many result pages to collect (default 1). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it runs through the ScrapeUnblocker API. It does not mention rate limits, pagination traits, or response size, but annotations suffice for safety profile.
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?
A single 15-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not detail the JSON structure or pagination behavior. For a search tool with 3 parameters, it adequately states the purpose but leaves the return format undocumented, which is a gap for an agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like keyword, proxy_country, or pages_to_check. No extra guidance on formatting or use.
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 verb 'run', the resource 'Google search', and the output format 'organic results as JSON'. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'fetch_html' and 'fetch_parsed' by specifying the source (Google) and the structured return type.
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 implies usage for obtaining Google search results but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this tool is specific to Google searches vs general web scraping from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!