A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceCaptures high-quality screenshots of web pages with automatic resolution limiting and tiling optimized for Claude Vision API and other AI models.
3
191 npm
110
MIT
netpascal-mcp-tools
netpascal-mcp-tools
MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버로 웹 자동화 및 유틸리티를 위한 도구를 제공합니다.
KiloCode MCP 서버 구성
원래 명령 패턴과 일치하도록 npx -y tsx를 통해 TypeScript 소스를 직접 실행합니다.
"mcp": {
"netpascal": {
"type": "local",
"command": ["npx", "-y", "ts-node", "github:PascalNoisette/mcp-tools/src/index.ts"],
"env": {
"CAMOFOX_URL": "http://youcamofox",
"CAMOFOX_API_KEY": "yourkey"
}
}
}Related MCP server: camofox-browser-mcp
도구
netpascal_camofox_save_screenshot
Camofox 브라우저 탭의 스크린샷을 찍어 로컬 파일에 직접 저장합니다. 단순한 camofox_screenshot보다 파일을 직접 저장하고 토큰을 절약하는 데 더 좋습니다.
변수 | 설명 | 예시 |
| Camofox 서버 URL |
|
| Camofox API 키 |
|
Camofox 스택이 필요합니다.
Available Tools
2 toolscamofox_save_screenshotA
Take a screenshot of a Camofox browser tab and save it directly to a local file. Better than a simple camofox_screenshot to write to file directly and save tokens.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | Yes | The tab ID to capture | |
| userId | Yes | The user ID for the session | |
| sessionKey | Yes | The session key for authentication | |
| output_file | Yes | File path to save the screenshot image |
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No side effects, permissions, or failure conditions are mentioned. The description only notes a benefit ('save tokens') and does not disclose potential issues like file overwriting or authentication requirements. Since annotations are absent, this lack of behavioral detail is a gap.
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 is two sentences, front-loading the main action and purpose, with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and comparative advantage.
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 the description covers the action and one key benefit, it does not mention the return value (if any) or potential error cases, and lacks an output schema. For a simple utility, it is adequate but not fully complete in all operational contexts.
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?
The schema provides basic descriptions for all parameters, so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'save it directly to a local file' reinforces output_file), but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints, so it remains at the baseline.
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 action (take a screenshot), the resource (Camofish browser tab), and the outcome (save to a local file). It also differentiates it from a simpler tool, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies when to use this tool over the alternative by stating it is 'better than a simple camofish_screenshot to write to file directly and save tokens', providing a clear preference condition. However, it does not explicitly list scenarios for the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
greetA
Greets the user by name
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the person to greet |
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without describing side effects, return value, or any other behavioral traits. For example, it does not say whether the tool returns a greeting string or performs some other output.
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 is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but leaves the return value and behavior unspecified. An agent knows what to pass but not what to expect back, so it is not fully complete.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the 'name' parameter (100% coverage), and the description's 'by name' adds minimal extra meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 uses the specific verb 'greets' and identifies the resource ('the user') and the method ('by name'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also clearly differs from the sibling tool camofox_save_screenshot, which is about saving screenshots.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The intended usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no stated context or comparison with the sibling tool.
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.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
camofox_save_screenshot - First observed
greet
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely unrelated purposes: one is a simple greeting utility, the other is a browser screenshot capture. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming shows no consistent pattern: 'greet' uses a bare verb, while 'camofox_save_screenshot' uses a prefix plus verb_noun with camelCase. The inconsistent verbosity and casing make the set feel disjointed.
Tool Count2/5
With only two tools, the server feels extremely thin. One is trivial ('greet') and the other seems more domain-specific (Camofox), leaving no coherent purpose or breadth. A useful server would typically have more tools to justify its existence.
Completeness1/5
The tool set is severely incomplete. There is no discernible domain coverage: 'greet' is a one-off, and 'camofox_save_screenshot' covers only a single action in an undefined context, lacking any related operations like listing tabs, capturing to buffer, or managing files.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Capture screenshots of webpages as images or PDFs with Screenshot Scout.
Capture website screenshots, run bulk captures, and manage screenshot schedules and history.
1Screenshot any URL/HTML as PNG/JPEG/WebP, or read it as clean Markdown/text for LLMs.
Web scraping to Markdown and structured data, screenshots, batch jobs and browser sessions.
1
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for controlling a local camofox-browser instance, enabling LLM agents to perform web automation tasks such as navigation, interaction, snapshotting, and content extraction.21 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables browser automation via Chrome, allowing navigation, clicking, typing, screenshotting, and replayable flows for web tasks.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides browser automation using Selenium, supporting Chrome and Firefox, with tools for navigation, element interaction, screenshots, and more.1Mulan Permissive Software , Version 2