stagenth · 托管浏览器
Server Details
Hosted Chromium in mainland China: scripted actions, URL screenshots, print-to-PDF.
- 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 serves a clear and distinct purpose: PDF generation, interactive execution with data extraction, and screenshot capture. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent 'browser_<action>' pattern in snake_case, making it predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools is well-scoped for a hosted browser service, covering the essential actions without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers the core use cases: saving pages as PDF, interactive extraction, and screenshots. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Available Tools
3 toolsbrowser_pdfAInspect
把网页打印成 PDF（境内真 Chromium 渲染，文字可选中可搜索），落文件中转站并返下载 URL。
适合归档网页、报告引用、给不能上网的流程留底；固定 1 credit，失败不计费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 要打印成 PDF 的网页 URL（http/https，仅限公开网页） | |
| wait_ms | No | 打印前等待毫秒（等 JS 渲染完），默认 1500 | |
| page_format | No | 纸张规格：A4 / A3 / Letter / Legal，默认 A4 | A4 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions domestic Chromium rendering, text selectability, download URL output, and failure policy. However, it omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, or file size limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 with two sentences, front-loading the core action. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior. It lacks some completeness elements like error handling or output format details, but is mostly adequate.
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% with all parameters described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, mostly providing context about rendering and output. The baseline of 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 verb 'print' and resource 'web page to PDF', with specific details about rendering and output. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning PDF generation, while siblings handle scripts and screenshots.
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 clear usage contexts: archiving, citations, offline records. It also mentions fixed credit and no charge on failure, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
browser_runAInspect
在境内托管浏览器里打开网页并执行一串动作，返回抽取的数据 + 截图下载 URL。
浏览器跑在中国境内、真 Chromium 渲染，能打开海外抓不动的国内站（政务/招投标/电商比价）。 按浏览器时长计费（每 15 秒 1 credit，不足 1 档按 1 档）；执行失败不计费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 要打开的网页 URL（http/https） | |
| actions | No | 浏览器动作序列（可选，按顺序执行），每项是一个对象。支持类型：goto{url} 跳转、wait{ms} 等待毫秒、wait_for{selector} 等元素出现、click{selector} 点击、fill{selector,value} 填表、scroll{to:bottom|top} 滚动、extract{selector,as:text|html|table,name} 抽取内容到 data[name]、screenshot{full_page,name} 截图（返回下载 URL）。 | |
| timeout_ms | No | 单个动作超时（毫秒），默认 30000 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: true Chromium rendering in China, billing by browser time (per 15s increments), and no charge on execution failure. These details go beyond the basic functionality, but could be enhanced by mentioning browser state management or concurrency limits.
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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It consists of two clear sentences plus a separate billing line, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and billing implications. Given the lack of an output schema, it helpfully states that the tool returns extracted data and screenshot download URLs. However, it could more explicitly describe the output structure.
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 already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, covering 100% of them. The main description adds value by explaining billing and failure context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: opening web pages in a domestic hosted browser and executing a sequence of actions, returning extracted data and screenshot download URLs. It distinguishes itself by noting it can access domestic Chinese sites inaccessible to overseas tools.
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 clear context for when to use this tool: for accessing domestic Chinese sites that overseas tools cannot handle. It also mentions billing details and failure policy, offering practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
browser_screenshotAInspect
给网页拍一张截图（境内真 Chromium 渲染），PNG 落文件中转站并返 15 分钟下载 URL。
比 browser_run 简单直接：一个 URL 进、一张图出；固定 1 credit，失败不计费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 要截图的网页 URL（http/https，仅限公开网页） | |
| wait_ms | No | 截图前等待毫秒（等 JS 渲染完），默认 1500 | |
| full_page | No | 整页长图（false=只截首屏视口） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses real Chromium rendering, domestic server, 15-minute URL validity, and pricing. However, it lacks details on potential limits (e.g., page size, rate limits) or handling of dynamic content beyond the wait_ms parameter.
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, using two short sentences to convey the core purpose and a separate line for comparison. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-front-loaded.
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 three parameters are fully documented in the schema and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers input behavior and output format (PNG download URL with 15-min validity). It also mentions fixed pricing and no-charge on failure.
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 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions '真 Chromium 渲染' and '境内' but these do not clarify parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 takes a webpage screenshot using domestic Chromium rendering, outputs a PNG file with a 15-minute download URL. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling browser_run by being simpler ('一个 URL 进、一张图出').
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 clear context: it is simpler than browser_run and has fixed credit cost. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use or not use browser_pdf, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative scenarios.
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!