Skip to main content
Glama
GeoCodeCrafter

frontend-eyes

by GeoCodeCrafter
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to frontend-eyes

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • agent-eyes

      oljodev
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to see, measure, and verify web pages through a real Chrome browser, including screenshots, responsive layout and accessibility audits, pixel diffing against baselines, secure logins, and deployed-fix verification.
      27
      1
      MIT

    • websight

      h34tsink
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to see, analyze, and visually verify web page changes through pixel-perfect diffing, theme extraction, layout analysis, and interactive element detection.
      4 npm
      MIT

    • browsertrack

      litepacks
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to access local browser diagnostics—runtime errors, console logs, network failures, breadcrumbs, DOM snapshots, and screenshots—and run closed-loop verification to debug and confirm fixes.
      53 npm
      -
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    capture is solely concerned with layout overflow across viewport widths, while diagnose handles console errors, exceptions, and failed requests. Their purposes are clearly separated with no meaningful overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names are lowercase imperative verbs and follow the same two-tool pattern, but they are generic single words rather than descriptive verb_noun pairs. This is still internally consistent, though slightly less informative.

    Tool Count4/5

    Two tools is small, but the server appears intentionally scoped to frontend issue detection rather than broad browser automation. The count is slightly thin yet reasonable for the stated purpose.

    Completeness4/5

    The pair covers common frontend failure modes: visual overflow and runtime/network errors. Missing areas like accessibility or performance checks are not obviously required by the server's narrow focus, though the surface is minimal.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources