Configurable Puppeteer MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Clicking, evaluating JavaScript, filling inputs, hovering, navigating, taking screenshots, and selecting dropdown elements are all separate browser automation operations that an agent can easily distinguish. The descriptions clearly differentiate each action.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case naming (puppeteer_click, puppeteer_evaluate, etc.). The 'puppeteer_' prefix creates a clear namespace, and the action verbs (click, evaluate, fill, hover, navigate, screenshot, select) are consistently descriptive and parallel in structure.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a Puppeteer automation server. This provides core browser interaction capabilities without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations like navigation, interaction, evaluation, and capture that form a complete automation workflow.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers most essential Puppeteer operations well, including navigation, interaction, evaluation, and screenshots. Minor gaps exist - there's no explicit tool for waiting/loading states, keyboard input, or cookie/session management - but agents can work around these using evaluate or other tools. Core browser automation workflows are well-supported.
Average 2.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions selecting an element but doesn't explain what happens—e.g., does it trigger events, change page state, or have side effects? It lacks details on error handling, permissions, or performance implications, which are critical for a tool interacting with web pages.
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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 web interaction tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error cases, or how it fits into broader Puppeteer workflows. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 both parameters ('selector' and 'value') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid selectors or what 'value' represents in the context of a 'Select tag'. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Select') and target ('element on the page with Select tag'), but it's vague about what 'Select' means in this context—whether it's clicking, choosing an option, or something else. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'puppeteer_click' or 'puppeteer_fill', which could involve similar interactions.
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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for dropdowns, multi-selects, or other 'Select tag' elements, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a page loaded first. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('fill out') but doesn't cover critical traits like whether it requires a loaded page, if it waits for the element to be visible, error handling for invalid selectors, or side effects (e.g., triggering events). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 ('Fill out an input field') that directly states the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 a web automation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, dependencies on other tools (e.g., navigation first), or what happens after filling (e.g., does it submit?). For a mutation tool in a sibling-rich environment, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'selector' (CSS selector) and 'value' (value to fill). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fill out an input field' clearly states the verb ('fill out') and resource ('input field'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about the context (e.g., web page automation) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'puppeteer_click' or 'puppeteer_select', which could also interact with input fields. This results in a vague but functional purpose statement.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a page to be loaded), exclusions (e.g., not for non-input elements), or comparisons to siblings like 'puppeteer_select' for dropdowns. Without such context, users must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this triggers page navigation, requires the element to be visible/clickable, handles errors (e.g., if selector not found), or has side effects like waiting for network requests. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (a mutation tool interacting with web pages), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, prerequisites, or what happens post-click (e.g., page changes), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'selector' fully documented in the schema as 'CSS selector for element to click'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as selector syntax examples or constraints. 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 ('click') and target ('an element on the page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'puppeteer_hover' or 'puppeteer_select', which also interact with page elements, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page to be loaded), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'puppeteer_hover' for non-click interactions or 'puppeteer_select' for dropdowns.
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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Execute JavaScript in the browser console' implies a mutation operation (executing code) but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires specific page context, if it runs in isolated or page context, what happens on errors, or any side effects. It mentions nothing about permissions, rate limits, or execution environment details.
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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 this is a JavaScript execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., result of executed script), error behavior, execution context, or prerequisites. For a tool that can have significant side effects, more context about behavior and output is needed.
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 has 100% description coverage (parameter 'script' is fully documented in schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides about the 'script' parameter. No additional syntax, format, or usage details are given.
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 'Execute JavaScript in the browser console' clearly states the action (execute) and target (JavaScript in browser console). It distinguishes from siblings like puppeteer_click or puppeteer_navigate by focusing on script execution rather than UI interaction or navigation. However, it doesn't specify what 'browser' refers to (Puppeteer-controlled browser context), which prevents 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. It doesn't mention when puppeteer_evaluate is appropriate compared to other Puppeteer tools (e.g., use for custom logic vs. puppeteer_click for button clicks) or what scenarios it's designed for. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover important traits like whether hovering triggers page events, requires the element to be visible, has side effects (e.g., changing page state), or handles errors (e.g., if the selector doesn't exist). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-like operation.
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 extremely concise at four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Hover an element'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by contributing directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after hovering (e.g., whether it waits for effects or returns a status), potential errors, or dependencies (e.g., requiring a page to be loaded first). For a tool that likely mutates page state, more context is needed.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a CSS selector. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples of valid selectors or how to handle multiple matches. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 'Hover an element on the page' clearly states the action (hover) and target (an element on the page), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'puppeteer_click' or 'puppeteer_select', which also interact with page elements but perform different actions.
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. It doesn't mention scenarios where hovering is appropriate (e.g., to trigger dropdowns or tooltips) or when other tools like 'puppeteer_click' might be better suited. Without such context, the agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether navigation waits for page load, handles errors, requires a browser session, or has side effects like clearing state.
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 zero waste, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on navigation behavior, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for a tool in a Puppeteer context.
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 0%, but the description adds minimal meaning by implying the 'url' parameter is for navigation. It doesn't specify URL format, validation, or constraints, leaving gaps despite the single parameter.
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 'Navigate to a URL' clearly states the action (navigate) and target (URL), distinguishing it from siblings like click or fill. However, it doesn't specify the browser context or differentiate from potential navigation alternatives, 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluating JavaScript or interacting with page elements. The description implies usage for URL navigation but lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific page states, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid selector), or the output format (e.g., image data, file path). This is inadequate for a tool with potential side effects.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., image data, file path), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (like puppeteer_navigate). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more behavioral context is needed.
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 minimal value beyond the schema—it implies 'selector' targets elements and 'width/height' control dimensions, but doesn't provide additional context like selector syntax examples or dimension constraints.
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 ('Take a screenshot') and target ('current page or a specific element'), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., puppeteer_click, puppeteer_evaluate), which are different interaction types rather than direct alternatives for screenshotting.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded via puppeteer_navigate first), exclusions, or contextual advice for choosing between full-page vs. element screenshots.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-configurable-puppeteer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/afshawnlotfi/mcp-configurable-puppeteer/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/afshawnlotfi/mcp-configurable-puppeteer)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-configurable-puppeteer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/afshawnlotfi/mcp-configurable-puppeteer/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/afshawnlotfi/mcp-configurable-puppeteer)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/afshawnlotfi/mcp-configurable-puppeteer'

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