Skip to main content
Glama

Obtener navegador

Un potente servidor MCP de navegador sin interfaz gráfica que permite a los agentes de IA obtener contenido web y realizar búsquedas en Google sin necesidad de claves API. Desarrollado con estándares web modernos y diseñado para una integración fluida con plataformas de IA.

Características

  • No se requieren claves API : utiliza un sofisticado enfoque de navegador sin cabeza para obtener contenido directamente

  • Búsqueda inteligente de Google :

    • Extraer resultados estructurados de las búsquedas de Google

    • Soporte para resultados web y de noticias

    • Número configurable de resultados (1-100)

    • Obtención de contenido completo de los resultados de búsqueda

    • Reintento automático y manejo de errores

  • Obtención de contenido universal :

    • Soporte para cualquier página web o punto final de API

    • Múltiples formatos de salida (HTML, JSON, Texto, Markdown)

    • Detección automática del tipo de contenido

    • Límites de tamaño de respuesta y protección de tiempo de espera

    • Protección de limitación de velocidad

  • Conversión de formato :

    • Conversión limpia de HTML a Markdown

    • Respuestas JSON con formato bonito

    • Salida HTML estructurada

    • Texto simple con formato adecuado

Related MCP server: Local Browser MCP

Herramientas

1. Herramienta de búsqueda de Google ( google_search )

Ejecuta búsquedas de Google y obtiene el contenido completo de los resultados:

{
  query: "your search query",
  responseType: "markdown", // or "json", "html", "text"
  maxResults: 10,          // 1-100 results
  topic: "web"            // or "news"
}

2. Herramienta de obtención de URL ( fetch_url )

Obtiene contenido de cualquier URL:

{
  url: "https://example.com",
  responseType: "markdown", // or "json", "html", "text"
  timeout: 30000          // optional, in milliseconds
}

Instalación

Vía Smithery

# For Claude
npx -y @smithery/cli install @TheSethRose/fetch-browser --client claude

# For Cursor
npx -y @smithery/cli install @TheSethRose/fetch-browser --client cursor

# For TypeScript
npx -y @smithery/cli install @TheSethRose/fetch-browser --client typescript

Instalación manual

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/TheSethRose/fetch-browser.git
cd fetch-browser

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build the project
npm run build

# Start the server
npm start

Desarrollo

# Watch mode with auto-rebuild
npm run watch

# Run with inspector
npm run inspector

# Debug mode
npm run debug

# Debug with watch mode
npm run debug:watch

Formatos de respuesta

1. Formato Markdown

## [Page Title](https://example.com)

Content converted to clean markdown with:
- Lists
- **Bold text**
- *Italic text*
- [Links](https://example.com)

2. Formato JSON

{
  "url": "https://example.com",
  "content": "Extracted content...",
  "error": null
}

3. Formato HTML

<div class="search-result">
  <h2><a href="https://example.com">Page Title</a></h2>
  <div class="content">
    Original HTML content
  </div>
</div>

4. Formato del texto

### https://example.com

Plain text content with preserved formatting
==========

Manejo de errores

  • Reintentos automáticos con retroceso exponencial

  • Protección de limitación de velocidad

  • Manejo del tiempo de espera

  • Mensajes de error detallados

  • Seguimiento de errores de resultados individuales

Características de seguridad

  • Límites de tamaño de respuesta

  • Tiempos de espera de solicitud

  • Protección de limitación de velocidad

  • No se requieren claves API ni secretos

  • Manejo adecuado de errores

Créditos

Creado por Seth Rose :

Licencia

Licencia MIT: consulte LICENCIA para obtener más detalles

Available Tools

2 tools
fetch_urlC

Fetch content from a URL with proper error handling and response processing

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to fetch
responseTypeNoExpected response typetext
timeoutNoRequest timeout in milliseconds

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedfetch_url
    • First observedgoogle_search

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

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.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    An MCP server that enables AI assistants to fetch web content in multiple formats (HTML, JSON, text, Markdown) with intelligent content extraction, chunk management, and browser automation support.
    5
    68 npm
    15
    MIT
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A headless, agent-controllable real browser as an MCP server that enables AI agents to navigate, click, fill, eval JavaScript, and take screenshots on localhost and allowed hosts, with no GUI required.
    27
    5
    MIT
  • 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
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    An MCP server that provides browser-grade web access for AI agents, using Chrome's actual network stack to bypass anti-bot protections and return clean markdown.
    9
    -