Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
Metadrama

obscura-mcp

Official
by Metadrama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

obscura-mcp

スクレイピングおよびAIエージェント自動化のための軽量Rust製ヘッドレスブラウザ、Obscura用のMCPサーバーアダプターです。

ObscuraのネイティブなCDP機能をクリーンなMCPインターフェースを通じて公開します。Chromeへの依存や、重量級のブラウザ自動化ツールは不要です。

インストール

npm install -g obscura-mcp

インストールは一瞬で完了します。ブラウザバイナリ（約80MB）は初回使用時に遅延ダウンロードされます。

インストール後、以下のいずれかを行ってください：

  • obscura-mcp install を実行して、進捗状況を表示しながらバイナリをダウンロードする。

  • 単に obscura-mcp を実行する。自動的にバイナリがダウンロードされ、サーバーが起動します。

バイナリは ~/.obscura/bin/ にキャッシュされ、npmのアップグレード後も保持されます。

カスタムバイナリパスを使用する場合：

export OBSCURA_PATH=/path/to/obscura

Related MCP server: Algonius Browser

クイックスタート

# Install
npm install -g obscura-mcp

# Verify
obscura-mcp --version

# Download browser binary
obscura-mcp install

# Start MCP server
obscura-mcp --transport stdio

ツール

browse_url

ObscuraのCDPエンジンを使用してURLを取得します。ページコンテンツを返します。

パラメータ:

  • url (string, 必須): アクセスするHTTPまたはHTTPS URL。

  • dump (string, 任意): html、text、または links。デフォルトは html です。

  • cookies (array, 任意): ナビゲーション前に注入するCookie。browse_cookies が返すものと同じ形式を受け入れます。実際のブラウザからエクスポートしたCookieを渡すことで、認証が必要なページにアクセスできます。

  • stealth (boolean, 任意): 互換性のために受け入れられます。ステルス動作はObscuraサーバーによって制御されます。

browse_evaluate

URLに移動し、ページコンテキストでJavaScriptを実行します。評価結果を返します。

パラメータ:

  • url (string, 必須): アクセスするURL。

  • expression (string, 必須): 評価するJavaScript式。例: document.title, navigator.userAgent, document.querySelector('h1').textContent。

  • stealth (boolean, 任意): 互換性のために受け入れられます。

browse_cookies

URLに移動し、ページによって設定されたすべてのCookieを取得します。各Cookieの名前、値、ドメイン、パス、有効期限を返します。

パラメータ:

  • url (string, 必須): アクセスするURL。

  • stealth (boolean, 任意): 互換性のために受け入れられます。

設定

Claude Desktop / Cline / Continue / その他のMCPクライアント

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "obscura-mcp": {
      "command": "obscura-mcp",
      "args": ["--transport", "stdio"]
    }
  }
}

VS Code (Cline拡張機能)

{
  "servers": {
    "obscura-mcp": {
      "command": "obscura-mcp",
      "args": ["--transport", "stdio"]
    }
  }
}

グローバルなnpmインストール後、obscura-mcp はPATHに含まれるため、絶対パスは不要です。

環境変数

変数

デフォルト

説明

OBSCURA_PATH

—

カスタムObscuraバイナリへのパス

MCP_HTTP_HOST

127.0.0.1

HTTPトランスポートホスト

MCP_HTTP_PORT

3000

HTTPトランスポートポート

MCP_TRANSPORT

stdio

トランスポートモード: stdio または streamable-http

OBSCURA_STARTUP_TIMEOUT_MS

15000

Obscura CDPの起動を待機するミリ秒

OBSCURA_NAVIGATION_WAIT_MS

3000

ページ遷移後に待機するミリ秒

CDP_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS

10000

CDP応答を待機するミリ秒

なぜObscuraなのか？

  • Chrome不要 — 純粋なRust製、200MBのブラウザバンドルは不要

  • CDPネイティブ — Chrome DevTools Protocolを直接公開

  • 検知回避 — スクレイピング対策サイト向けのステルス機能を内蔵

  • 超軽量 — 約15MBのバイナリ、ミリ秒単位で起動

ライセンス

MIT

Available Tools

3 tools
browse_cookiesA

Navigate to a URL and retrieve all cookies set by the page. Returns cookie name, value, domain, path, and expiry for each cookie.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to visit
stealthNoAccepted for compatibility. Stealth behavior is controlled by the Obscura server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to visit
expressionYesJavaScript expression to evaluate in the page context. The result is JSON-stringified. Examples: 'document.title', 'navigator.userAgent', 'document.querySelector("h1").textContent'
stealthNoAccepted for compatibility. Stealth behavior is controlled by the Obscura server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to visit
dumpNoThe format to return content inhtml
cookiesNoOptional 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.
stealthNoAccepted for compatibility. Stealth behavior is controlled by the Obscura server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

  1. 3 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedbrowse_cookies
    • First observedbrowse_evaluate
    • First observedbrowse_url
Deploy Server
Give agents eyes on the webHosted screenshot MCP. Send a URL, get a pixel-perfect image. $0.002 per grab. Works with Claude, Cursor, and Codex.grabbit.liveAd

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving cookies, executing JavaScript, and fetching a URL. There is no ambiguity between the three operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'browse_<operation>', using snake_case and a common prefix, ensuring predictability.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • scraperapi-mcp-server by scraperapi

    scraperapi-mcp-serverofficial

    scraperapi
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A local MCP server that lets AI agents bypass bot detection, geo-restrictions, and JavaScript rendering challenges when scraping the web, backed by ScraperAPI's services
    28
    5
    MIT
  • Algonius Browser by algonius

    Algonius Browserofficial

    algonius
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An open-source MCP server that provides browser automation capabilities to external AI systems, enabling navigation, DOM interaction, and web content extraction.
    20
    Apache 2.0

  • Cloudflare Playwright MCP

    haruhi2ux
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An 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 npm
    Apache 2.0

  • krwl3r

    garciarsdiego
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for web scraping and browser automation, enabling AI agents to extract clean, token-efficient content from web pages.
    1
    MIT