Skip to main content
Glama

浏览器使用的 MCP 服务器

MCP 服务器项目

成分

资源

服务器实现了一个简单的笔记存储系统,其中包括:

  • 用于访问单个笔记的自定义 note:// URI 方案

  • 每个笔记资源都有一个名称、描述和文本/纯文本 mimetype

提示

服务器提供一个提示:

  • 总结笔记:创建所有存储笔记的摘要

    • 可选的“样式”参数用于控制详细程度(简要/详细)

    • 生成提示,结合所有当前注释和样式偏好

工具

服务器实现了一个工具:

  • add-note:向服务器添加新注释

    • 将“名称”和“内容”作为必需的字符串参数

    • 更新服务器状态并通知客户端资源变化

Related MCP server: Datetime MCP Server

配置

[TODO:添加特定于您的实现的配置详细信息]

快速入门

安装

克劳德桌面

在 MacOS 上: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json在 Windows 上: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

发展

构建和发布

准备分发包:

  1. 同步依赖项并更新锁文件:

uv sync
  1. 构建软件包分发版:

uv build

这将在dist/目录中创建源和轮子分布。

  1. 发布到 PyPI:

uv publish

注意:您需要通过环境变量或命令标志设置 PyPI 凭据:

  • 令牌: --token或UV_PUBLISH_TOKEN

  • 或用户名/密码: --username / UV_PUBLISH_USERNAME和--password / UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD

调试

由于 MCP 服务器通过 stdio 运行,调试起来可能比较困难。为了获得最佳调试体验,我们强烈建议使用MCP Inspector 。

您可以使用以下命令通过npm启动 MCP Inspector:

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /Users/adamholsinger/mcp-servers/browser-use run browser-use

启动后,检查器将显示一个 URL,您可以在浏览器中访问该 URL 以开始调试。

Available Tools

1 tool
add-noteC

Add a new note

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
contentYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 only says 'Add a new note' and provides no details on side effects, permissions, return values, or error behavior.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, though this is largely a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, a five-word description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The meaning of the parameters and expected return behavior remain ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the two required parameters ('name' and 'content'), and the description does not explain their meaning or format. The agent cannot infer what 'name' or 'content' represent.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('note'), clearly stating the tool's function. It differentiates itself from the sibling 'get_report', which is a read operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action without any context about when to invoke it or when to choose a 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.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedadd-note

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or confusion between tools. The tool 'add-note' has a clear and distinct purpose that cannot be misselected against other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool, it inherently follows a consistent naming pattern. The tool name 'add-note' uses a verb_noun format, which is clear and predictable, and there are no other tools to cause inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a server named 'browser-use', which suggests a broader scope related to browser interactions. This minimal set feels thin and incomplete for the implied domain, limiting functionality.

Completeness1/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a browser-use server. With only an 'add-note' tool, there are obvious gaps in core browser operations like navigation, clicking, or form filling, making it inadequate for typical browser automation tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers