Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
jwaldor

Puppeteer MCP Server

by jwaldor
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Puppeteer

A Model Context Protocol server that provides browser automation capabilities using Puppeteer. This server enables LLMs to interact with web pages, take screenshots, and execute JavaScript in a real browser environment.

Components

Tools

  • puppeteer_navigate

    • Navigate to any URL in the browser

    • Input: url (string)

  • puppeteer_screenshot

    • Capture screenshots of the entire page or specific elements

    • Inputs:

      • name (string, required): Name for the screenshot

      • selector (string, optional): CSS selector for element to screenshot

      • width (number, optional, default: 800): Screenshot width

      • height (number, optional, default: 600): Screenshot height

  • puppeteer_click

    • Click elements on the page

    • Input: selector (string): CSS selector for element to click

  • puppeteer_hover

    • Hover elements on the page

    • Input: selector (string): CSS selector for element to hover

  • puppeteer_fill

    • Fill out input fields

    • Inputs:

      • selector (string): CSS selector for input field

      • value (string): Value to fill

  • puppeteer_select

    • Select an element with SELECT tag

    • Inputs:

      • selector (string): CSS selector for element to select

      • value (string): Value to select

  • puppeteer_evaluate

    • Execute JavaScript in the browser console

    • Input: script (string): JavaScript code to execute

Resources

The server provides access to two types of resources:

  1. Console Logs (console://logs)

    • Browser console output in text format

    • Includes all console messages from the browser

  2. Screenshots (screenshot://<name>)

    • PNG images of captured screenshots

    • Accessible via the screenshot name specified during capture

Related MCP server: Puppeteer MCP Server

Key Features

  • Browser automation

  • Console log monitoring

  • Screenshot capabilities

  • JavaScript execution

  • Basic web interaction (navigation, clicking, form filling)

Configuration to use Puppeteer Server

Here's the Claude Desktop configuration to use the Puppeter server:

Docker

NOTE The docker implementation will use headless chromium, where as the NPX version will open a browser window.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "--init", "-e", "DOCKER_CONTAINER=true", "mcp/puppeteer"]
    }
  }
}

NPX

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-puppeteer"]
    }
  }
}

Build

Docker build:

docker build -t mcp/puppeteer -f src/puppeteer/Dockerfile .

License

This MCP server is licensed under the MIT License. This means you are free to use, modify, and distribute the software, subject to the terms and conditions of the MIT License. For more details, please see the LICENSE file in the project repository.

Available Tools

4 tools
make_http_requestC

Make an HTTP request with curl

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesBody to include in the request
headersYesHeaders to include in the request
typeYesType of the request. GET, POST, PUT, DELETE
urlYesUrl to make the request to

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'with curl', hinting at underlying implementation, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether it handles authentication, rate limits, error responses, timeouts, or what the return format looks like. For a tool making HTTP requests, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Make an HTTP request with curl', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function, making it efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of making HTTP requests, no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with this functionality, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 4 parameters (body, headers, type, url). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Make an HTTP request with curl', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Make') and resource ('HTTP request'), but lacks specificity about what curl entails or how it differs from sibling tools like puppeteer_navigate or semantic_search_requests. It doesn't distinguish itself from alternatives, leaving ambiguity about its scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like puppeteer_navigate (for browser navigation) and semantic_search_requests (for search-related requests), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the tool name, not explained.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_navigateC

Navigate to a URL

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It implies a navigation action but doesn't disclose traits like whether it waits for page load, handles errors, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., changing browser state). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a browser.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Navigate to a URL') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after navigation (e.g., returns success/failure, page content), error handling, or dependencies like requiring a Puppeteer page context, which are critical for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning by specifying that the 'url' parameter is for navigation, which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could detail URL format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Navigate to a URL' clearly states the action (navigate) and target (URL), but it's somewhat vague about what 'navigate' entails in the Puppeteer context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'make_http_request' (HTTP vs browser navigation) and 'puppeteer_page_history' (navigation vs history tracking), but doesn't specify browser/page context explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing page), when not to use it (e.g., for non-browser requests), or comparisons to siblings like 'make_http_request' for HTTP calls versus browser navigation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_page_historyB

Get the history of visited URLs, most recent urls first

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states what the tool does but lacks critical details: whether it requires an active Puppeteer session, if it returns a list or object, potential errors (e.g., no page open), or performance implications. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Get the history') and adds a useful ordering detail ('most recent urls first'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and the tool's potential complexity (interacting with browser history), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return format, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., needing a page object). For a tool with rich behavioral context needs, this is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools. No additional parameter context is required or provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('history of visited URLs'), and specifies ordering ('most recent urls first'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'puppeteer_navigate' or 'make_http_request', but the focus on history retrieval is distinct enough for a 4.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'semantic_search_requests'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

semantic_search_requestsC

Semantically search for requests that occurred within a page URL. Returns the top 10 results.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_urlYesThe page within which to search for requests
queryYesYour search request. Make this specific and detailed to get the best results

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'top 10 results,' which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what 'requests' refer to (e.g., HTTP requests, user requests), how semantic search works, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits or permissions required. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a semantic search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'requests' are, how results are ranked or formatted, or any error conditions. Without this context, an agent might struggle to use the tool correctly or interpret outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('page_url' and 'query') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Semantically search for requests that occurred within a page URL.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (requests), and scope (within a page URL). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'make_http_request' or 'puppeteer_page_history', 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'make_http_request' (for making requests) or 'puppeteer_navigate' (for page navigation), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: make_http_request performs general HTTP requests, puppeteer_navigate navigates to URLs in a browser context, puppeteer_page_history retrieves navigation history, and semantic_search_requests searches within page requests. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed with no consistent pattern: make_http_request uses verb_noun format, puppeteer_navigate and puppeteer_page_history use a prefix_noun format, and semantic_search_requests uses an adjective_noun_noun format. While readable, the conventions vary without a predictable structure.

Tool Count3/5

With only 4 tools, the count feels thin for a Puppeteer server, which typically handles browser automation tasks like clicking, typing, or screenshotting. The tools cover basic navigation and HTTP requests but lack broader automation capabilities, making the scope borderline under-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a Puppeteer server, there are significant gaps in the tool surface. Missing are core operations like interacting with page elements (e.g., click, type), evaluating scripts, taking screenshots, or managing browser contexts. The tools provided focus narrowly on navigation and HTTP requests, leaving major automation workflows uncovered.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Puppeteer MCP Server

    lijingle1
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables LLMs to perform browser automation including web navigation, element interaction, and screenshot capture using Puppeteer. It provides capabilities for executing JavaScript in the browser and monitoring console logs for debugging and data extraction.
    28,366
    MIT

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jwaldor/mcp-scrape-copilot'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server