Skip to main content
Glama
DevEnterpriseSoftware

ScrAPI MCP Server

by DevEnterpriseSoftware
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinguished by their output format (HTML vs Markdown), leaving no ambiguity about which to use based on desired result type.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'scrape_url_{format}' pattern with identical prefix and clear format suffix, making naming predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With exactly 2 tools covering the two primary output formats (HTML and Markdown), the count is minimal but complete for the server's core purpose.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the essential use cases of scraping with browser interaction and returning structured output. Minor gaps like raw text or JSON output exist but are not critical.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Despite no annotations, the description details the ScrAPI service, browser commands with constraints (e.g., max wait time), and interaction capabilities. Does not mention failure modes or rate limits but covers key behaviors.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    Well-structured with clear separation of overview and command details. Slightly lengthy due to command examples, but each part adds value and is front-loaded with purpose.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Lacks details on output structure (e.g., response format, error handling) and authentication requirements. For a scraping tool without an output schema, more on return values would be beneficial.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds extensive semantics for browserCommands (list of commands, parameters, examples), which goes well beyond the schema's brief description.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool scrapes a URL and retrieves the result as HTML, explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling tool by mentioning 'advanced parsing' for HTML output.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Provides explicit use cases (scraping content with bot detection, captchas, geolocation) and implies when to prefer HTML over markdown. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but sufficient context.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses using ScrAPI service, handling bot detection, and details browser command behavior. However, it does not mention failure modes or rate limits, which are relevant for scraping tools.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is somewhat lengthy due to the browser commands section, but it is clearly structured with a heading and bullet-like list. It could be more concise by trimming redundant phrases.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given no output schema, the description states result is Markdown but lacks specifics on structure. It covers main usage and browser interaction well. For a scraping tool, this is mostly sufficient, though more detail on output format would help.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the browserCommands parameter format with a list of available commands and an example, which is not fully captured in the schema description.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states it scrapes a URL using ScrAPI and returns Markdown. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'scrape_url_html' by specifying Markdown output and use cases like bot detection, captchas, and geolocation restrictions.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description advises when to use: when text content is important and not structural information. It implies when not to use (if structural info is needed, use HTML version) but does not explicitly state alternatives. The context includes a sibling tool, which helps.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

scrapi-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

scrapi-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/DevEnterpriseSoftware/scrapi-mcp'

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