Skip to main content
Glama
TheSethRose

Fetch Browser

by TheSethRose
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: fetch_url retrieves content from a specific URL, while google_search performs web searches and returns results. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern (fetch_url, google_search), which is consistent and predictable. The minor deviation is that google_search includes a brand name, but this does not break the overall naming convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a browser-related purpose, as it lacks common operations like navigating pages, handling cookies, or interacting with web elements. However, the tools provided are core functionalities, so it's borderline appropriate.

    Completeness2/5

    For a browser server, there are significant gaps in coverage, such as no tools for page navigation, form submission, JavaScript execution, or session management. The surface is severely incomplete for typical browser automation tasks, limiting agent effectiveness.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

  • This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'proper error handling and response processing', which hints at robustness, but lacks specifics on authentication needs, rate limits, retry behavior, or what constitutes 'proper' processing. This is insufficient for a tool that interacts with external URLs.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from behavioral claims, and the phrase 'proper error handling and response processing' is somewhat vague and could be tightened.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of fetching from URLs (potential for errors, varied content types) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error formats, or detailed behavioral traits needed for reliable use by an AI agent.

    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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of different response types or timeout values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('fetch content from a URL') and resource ('URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'google_search', which likely serves a different purpose (searching vs. direct fetching).

    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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'google_search'. It mentions 'proper error handling and response processing' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the action and output formats. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, network dependencies, or error handling. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

    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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (search with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain result formats, error cases, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

    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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the impact of 'responseType' choices or 'topic' differences. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb ('execute') and resource ('Google search') with the outcome ('return results in various formats'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'fetch_url' by focusing on search rather than URL retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what 'various formats' means beyond the schema's enum values, keeping it from a perfect score.

    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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_url' or other search methods. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Fetch-Browser MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Fetch-Browser MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TheSethRose/Fetch-Browser'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server