obscura-mcp
Officialobscura-mcp
Un adaptador de servidor MCP para Obscura, un navegador headless ligero en Rust para scraping y automatización de agentes de IA.
Expone las capacidades CDP nativas de Obscura a través de una interfaz MCP limpia: sin dependencia de Chrome, sin automatización de navegador pesada.
Instalación
npm install -g obscura-mcpLa instalación es instantánea: el binario del navegador (~80 MB) se descarga de forma diferida en el primer uso.
Después de la instalación, puedes:
Ejecutar
obscura-mcp installpara descargar el binario con una barra de progreso visible, oSimplemente ejecutar
obscura-mcp: descarga el binario automáticamente e inicia el servidor.
El binario se almacena en caché en ~/.obscura/bin/ y persiste tras las actualizaciones de npm.
Para usar una ruta de binario personalizada:
export OBSCURA_PATH=/path/to/obscuraRelated MCP server: Algonius Browser
Inicio rápido
# Install
npm install -g obscura-mcp
# Verify
obscura-mcp --version
# Download browser binary
obscura-mcp install
# Start MCP server
obscura-mcp --transport stdioHerramientas
browse_url
Obtiene una URL utilizando el motor CDP de Obscura. Devuelve el contenido de la página.
Parámetros:
url(string, requerido): URL HTTP o HTTPS a visitar.dump(string, opcional):html,textolinks. Por defecto eshtml.cookies(array, opcional): Cookies a inyectar antes de la navegación. Acepta el mismo formato que devuelvebrowse_cookies: pasa cookies exportadas desde un navegador real para acceder a páginas autenticadas.stealth(boolean, opcional): Aceptado por compatibilidad. El comportamiento de sigilo (stealth) es controlado por el servidor Obscura.
browse_evaluate
Navega a una URL y ejecuta JavaScript en el contexto de la página. Devuelve el resultado evaluado.
Parámetros:
url(string, requerido): La URL a visitar.expression(string, requerido): Expresión JavaScript a evaluar. Ejemplos:document.title,navigator.userAgent,document.querySelector('h1').textContent.stealth(boolean, opcional): Aceptado por compatibilidad.
browse_cookies
Navega a una URL y recupera todas las cookies establecidas por la página. Devuelve el nombre, valor, dominio, ruta y caducidad de cada cookie.
Parámetros:
url(string, requerido): La URL a visitar.stealth(boolean, opcional): Aceptado por compatibilidad.
Configuración
Claude Desktop / Cline / Continue / Cualquier cliente MCP
{
"mcpServers": {
"obscura-mcp": {
"command": "obscura-mcp",
"args": ["--transport", "stdio"]
}
}
}VS Code (extensión Cline)
{
"servers": {
"obscura-mcp": {
"command": "obscura-mcp",
"args": ["--transport", "stdio"]
}
}
}Después de la instalación global de npm, obscura-mcp está en tu PATH; no se necesitan rutas absolutas.
Variables de entorno
Variable | Por defecto | Descripción |
| — | Ruta al binario personalizado de Obscura |
|
| Host de transporte HTTP |
|
| Puerto de transporte HTTP |
|
| Modo de transporte: |
|
| Milisegundos a esperar para que inicie el CDP de Obscura |
|
| Milisegundos a esperar después de la navegación de página |
|
| Milisegundos a esperar por la respuesta del CDP |
¿Por qué Obscura?
Sin Chrome — Rust puro, sin paquetes de navegador de 200 MB
Nativo de CDP — expone el protocolo Chrome DevTools directamente
Antidetección — sigilo integrado para sitios resistentes al scraping
Tamaño minúsculo — binario de ~15 MB, inicia en milisegundos
Licencia
MIT
Available Tools
3 toolsbrowse_cookiesA
Navigate to a URL and retrieve all cookies set by the page. Returns cookie name, value, domain, path, and expiry for each cookie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to visit | |
| stealth | No | Accepted for compatibility. Stealth behavior is controlled by the Obscura server. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations are absent, the description explains the stealth parameter's acceptance for compatibility and that actual behavior is server-controlled, adding some transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network requests, cookie setting by the page, or any required permissions.
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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details return fields. No wasted words, perfectly 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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the core purpose and return structure. However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid URL), edge cases (empty cookie set), and lacks usage context relative to siblings, leaving some gaps.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the stealth parameter by clarifying it is accepted but not effective, but for the url parameter it merely restates the schema. Overall, moderately helpful beyond 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 verb 'Navigate' and 'retrieve', the resource 'URL' and 'cookies', and specifies the scope 'all cookies set by the page'. It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like browse_url or browse_evaluate.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (browse_url, browse_evaluate). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
browse_evaluateA
Navigate to a URL and execute JavaScript in the page context. Returns the evaluated result as a string. Supports extracting data, clicking elements, filling forms, and reading page state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to visit | |
| expression | Yes | JavaScript expression to evaluate in the page context. The result is JSON-stringified. Examples: 'document.title', 'navigator.userAgent', 'document.querySelector("h1").textContent' | |
| stealth | No | Accepted for compatibility. Stealth behavior is controlled by the Obscura server. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool modifies page state (via clicking/filling forms) and returns stringified results, but omits details on side effects (e.g., session changes, error handling).
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second lists capabilities, making it efficient and 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and common use cases. However, it lacks details on return format for failures or async evaluation, slightly limiting completeness.
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% (baseline 3). The description adds value for the 'stealth' parameter by explaining compatibility and server control, and the 'expression' examples help, but overall schema already defines parameters clearly.
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 navigates to a URL and executes JavaScript, listing specific capabilities like extracting data, clicking elements, filling forms, and reading page state. It distinguishes from siblings (browse_cookies, browse_url) by focusing on script evaluation.
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 lists supported actions but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools, leaving context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
browse_urlA
Fetch a URL using Obscura's lightweight CDP engine. To access authenticated pages, pass cookies previously exported from browse_cookies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to visit | |
| dump | No | The format to return content in | html |
| cookies | No | Optional cookies to inject before navigation. Accepts the same format as returned by browse_cookies — an array of objects with at least name and value. Pass cookies exported from a real browser session to access authenticated pages. | |
| stealth | No | Accepted for compatibility. Stealth behavior is controlled by the Obscura server. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions 'lightweight CDP engine' and that stealth behavior is server-controlled, but lacks details on rendering, timeouts, or error handling, leaving significant behavioral aspects unspecified.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by key guidance. 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?
While purpose and authentication context are covered, the absence of output schema and lack of details about behavior (e.g., whether it executes JavaScript, timeouts) mean an agent may need more information to use the tool effectively.
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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by contextualizing cookies usage (linking to browse_cookies) and explaining stealth as compatibility, going slightly 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 fetches a URL using Obscura's CDP engine, and it distinguishes from siblings browse_cookies and browse_evaluate by focusing on URL fetching.
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?
It explicitly tells when to use cookies for authenticated pages and references browse_cookies as the source, but does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond cookies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
browse_cookies - First observed
browse_evaluate - First observed
browse_url
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving cookies, executing JavaScript, and fetching a URL. There is no ambiguity between the three operations.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'browse_<operation>', using snake_case and a common prefix, ensuring predictability.
With only 3 tools, the surface is thin for a browser automation server. It covers basic actions but feels minimal, so it is borderline appropriate.
The set covers URL fetching, cookie extraction, and JS execution, but lacks direct interaction tools (e.g., clicking, form filling, waiting). Workarounds are possible via JS, but gaps exist.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
Programmatic web-scraping MCP server powered by x402 micro-transactions on Base.
Turn any public website into an MCP server for agents to search, read and navigate.
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA local MCP server that lets AI agents bypass bot detection, geo-restrictions, and JavaScript rendering challenges when scraping the web, backed by ScraperAPI's services285MIT
Algonius Browserofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn open-source MCP server that provides browser automation capabilities to external AI systems, enabling navigation, DOM interaction, and web content extraction.20Apache 2.0- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI agents to automate browser interactions using Playwright and Cloudflare Workers, supporting tasks like navigation, clicking, typing, and screenshots.9,525 npmApache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for web scraping and browser automation, enabling AI agents to extract clean, token-efficient content from web pages.1MIT