Skip to main content
Glama
Mingye-Lu

acrawl

by Mingye-Lu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to acrawl

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Scout

      klarlabs-studio
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      single-binary MCP server that gives AI agents a browser. 66 tools for navigation, form filling, data extraction, screenshots, and DOM diffing — built on pure Chrome DevTools Protocol.
      13
      MIT

    • BRYG

      flexiblepackage
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server that lets AI assistants drive real Chromium browsers — navigate, click, type, read pages, run OCR, and record network traffic. 43 tools, credentials stay local, zero telemetry.
      -

    • Navigator MCP

      Sreehari2011
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables LLM agents to automate web browsers with token-efficient perception, stealth anti-detection, captcha solving, network interception, and isolated persistent sessions.
      51
      MIT

    • crw-mcp

      fastcrw
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Web scraping, crawling, and structured data extraction for AI agents. 5 tools: scrape (clean markdown from any URL), crawl (entire sites), map (discover URLs), extract (structured JSON), and search. 833ms avg latency, single binary, self-hostable.
      8
      1,069
      AGPL 3.0
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 39 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: navigation tools (navigate, refresh, go_back, switch_tab, scroll) differ from interaction tools (click, click_at, hover, fill_form, select_option, press_key), which differ from analysis tools (page_map, read_content, list_resources) and network/storage/performance tools. Even closely related pairs like list_network_activity vs inspect_request or list_page_logs vs inspect_log are well-separated by role. No two tools have overlapping or ambiguous scopes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All 39 tools follow a consistent snake_case convention with a clear verb-first pattern (switch_tab, save_script, read_content, execute_js, intercept_network, inspect_cookies, etc.). Even noun-like tool names like page_map and screenshot are used as commands and match the overall style. The naming is uniformly predictable, making it easy for an agent to infer the action–object relationship.

    Tool Count2/5

    At 39 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15) and the 25+ threshold considered too many. While the domain of web crawling is broad and each tool is individually justified, the sheer number makes the surface heavy and increases the cognitive load for agents. The server would benefit from consolidation or sub-modules to keep the tool list more manageable.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers a comprehensive lifecycle for web crawling: navigation, interaction, content extraction, scripting, network inspection, storage, cookies, performance, accessibility, and screenshots. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct cookie deletion or file upload handling), but these can be worked around via execute_js or other means. Overall, the domain is well-covered with few dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessResponsive

    Resources