mcp
Server Details
Cloud-based web access with real browsers and JS rendering by ScrapingAnt
- 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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool returns a different output format (HTML, Markdown, text), making them clearly distinguishable based on the desired output type.
All tools follow the consistent verb_noun_pattern: get_web_page_<format>, with the same base verb and parameter structure.
Three tools is exactly right for this scraping server—each output format is a distinct use case without unnecessary overhead.
The server covers the core scraping functionality by providing the three most common output formats (HTML, Markdown, text), with no obvious missing features.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_web_page_htmlAInspect
Fetch (scrape) a URL using ScrapingAnt and return the web page content as HTML.
Args: url: The URL of the page to extract (scrape). browser: Whether to use browser rendering. Default: True. proxy_type: Type of proxy to use. Default: 'datacenter'. Use 'residential' if you encounter anti-bot detection, which improves anti-bot avoidance. proxy_country: Optional ISO-3166 country code. Default: random worldwide proxy. Use when facing geo-restrictions. Available country codes: ae, au, br, ca, cn, cz, de, es, fr, gb, hk, id, il, in, it, jp, kr, my, nl, ph, pl, ru, sa, sg, th, us, vn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| browser | No | ||
| proxy_type | No | ||
| proxy_country | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explains the tool uses ScrapingAnt, default behavior (browser rendering, proxy type), and suggests when to use residential proxies. No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden well.
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?
Structured with an Args list, but some redundancy in explaining defaults. Could be slightly more concise.
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?
Covers all input parameters thoroughly, mentions output is HTML, and notes sibling tools for alternative formats. Given that an output schema likely exists, no further detail needed.
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?
Every parameter is described with its purpose, default value, and usage advice (e.g., residential proxy for anti-bot, country code for geo-restrictions). Adds meaning beyond the schema's title and default fields.
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 it fetches a URL and returns web page content as HTML. It is distinguishable from sibling tools get_web_page_markdown and get_web_page_text by specifying HTML output.
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?
Provides usage guidance for parameters like proxy_type and proxy_country, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_web_page_markdownAInspect
Fetch (scrape) a URL using ScrapingAnt and return the web page content as Markdown.
Args: url: The URL of the page to extract (scrape). browser: Whether to use browser rendering. Default: True. proxy_type: Type of proxy to use. Default: 'datacenter'. Use 'residential' if you encounter anti-bot detection, which improves anti-bot avoidance. proxy_country: Optional ISO-3166 country code. Default: random worldwide proxy. Use when facing geo-restrictions. Available country codes: ae, au, br, ca, cn, cz, de, es, fr, gb, hk, id, il, in, it, jp, kr, my, nl, ph, pl, ru, sa, sg, th, us, vn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| browser | No | ||
| proxy_type | No | ||
| proxy_country | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses it uses ScrapingAnt, defaults browser rendering, and explains proxy options, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication.
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 concise: a single sentence for overall purpose, then a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
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 and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral hints. Missing explicit sibling differentiation but overall 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?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and practical usage tips (e.g., residential proxy for anti-bot, country codes). Schema coverage is high, but the extra context elevates it.
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 it fetches a URL and returns Markdown content. The name and sibling tools (get_web_page_html, get_web_page_text) differentiate output format, making purpose unambiguous.
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 parameter-specific usage tips (e.g., residential proxy to avoid anti-bot, country codes for geo-restrictions), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_web_page_textAInspect
Fetch (scrape) a URL using ScrapingAnt and return the web page content as plain text.
Args: url: The URL of the page to extract (scrape). browser: Whether to use browser rendering. Default: True. proxy_type: Type of proxy to use. Default: 'datacenter'. Use 'residential' if you encounter anti-bot detection, which improves anti-bot avoidance. proxy_country: Optional ISO-3166 country code. Default: random worldwide proxy. Use when facing geo-restrictions. Available country codes: ae, au, br, ca, cn, cz, de, es, fr, gb, hk, id, il, in, it, jp, kr, my, nl, ph, pl, ru, sa, sg, th, us, vn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| browser | No | ||
| proxy_type | No | ||
| proxy_country | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains proxy behavior and browser rendering but omits potential limitations, rate limits, failure modes, or whether content is fetchable. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 relatively long but well-structured with parameter details in an accessible format. It could be more concise for quick scanning, but the information density is appropriate.
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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values. It thoroughly documents input parameters and tool behavior. Minor gaps in failure scenarios prevent a perfect score.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant value: it explains default browser behavior, proxy_type options (datacenter vs residential for anti-bot), proxy_country usage for geo-restrictions with available codes. This meaningfully augments the bare schema.
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 explicitly states the tool fetches a URL and returns plain text using ScrapingAnt. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_web_page_html, get_web_page_markdown) by specifying the output format as plain text.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. The description implies plain text output but does not provide when-not or alternative selection criteria. Users must infer usage from output format differences.
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!