Este servidor MCP (Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo) proporciona herramientas para obtener y procesar contenido web mediante la representación del navegador de Cloudflare para su uso como contexto en LLM. Está diseñado para funcionar con los entornos de cliente Claude y Cline.
Obtención de contenido web : obtenga y procese páginas web para el contexto LLM
Búsqueda de documentación : Busque documentación de Cloudflare y obtenga contenido relevante
Extracción de contenido estructurado : extraiga contenido estructurado de páginas web mediante selectores CSS
Resumen de contenido : resuma el contenido web para un contexto LLM más conciso
Captura de pantalla : toma capturas de pantalla de páginas web
Related MCP server: turbowebfetch
Node.js v18 o superior
Una cuenta de Cloudflare con acceso a la API de renderizado del navegador
Un Cloudflare Worker implementado que utiliza el archivo puppeteer-worker.js proporcionado
Para instalar Cloudflare Browser Rendering para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @amotivv/cloudflare-browser-rendering-mcp --client claudeClonar este repositorio:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/cloudflare-browser-rendering.git
cd cloudflare-browser-renderingInstalar dependencias:
npm installConstruir el proyecto:
npm run buildImplemente el archivo puppeteer-worker.js en Cloudflare Workers usando Wrangler:
npx wrangler deployAsegúrate de configurar los siguientes enlaces en tu Cloudflare Worker:
Enlace de representación del navegador llamado browser
Enlace del espacio de nombres KV denominado SCREENSHOTS
Anote la URL de su trabajador implementado (por ejemplo, https://browser-rendering-api.yourusername.workers.dev )
Abra el archivo de configuración de Claude Desktop:
# macOS
code ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
# Windows
code %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.jsonAgregue la configuración del servidor MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"cloudflare-browser-rendering": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/cloudflare-browser-rendering/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"BROWSER_RENDERING_API": "https://your-worker-url.workers.dev"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}Reiniciar Claude Desktop
Abra el archivo de configuración de Cline MCP:
# macOS
code ~/Library/Application\ Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
# Windows
code %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\saoudrizwan.claude-dev\settings\cline_mcp_settings.jsonAgregue la configuración del servidor MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"cloudflare-browser-rendering": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/cloudflare-browser-rendering/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"BROWSER_RENDERING_API": "https://your-worker-url.workers.dev"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}Una vez configurado, el servidor MCP estará disponible tanto para Claude Desktop como para Cline. Puede usar las siguientes herramientas:
Obtiene y procesa una página web para el contexto LLM.
Parámetros:
url (obligatorio): URL para obtener
maxContentLength (opcional): longitud máxima del contenido a devolver
Ejemplo:
Can you fetch and summarize the content from https://developers.cloudflare.com/browser-rendering/?Busca documentación de Cloudflare y devuelve contenido relevante.
Parámetros:
query (obligatoria): Consulta de búsqueda
maxResults (opcional): Número máximo de resultados a devolver
Ejemplo:
Search the Cloudflare documentation for information about "browser rendering API".Extrae contenido estructurado de una página web utilizando selectores CSS.
Parámetros:
url (obligatorio): URL de la que extraer el contenido
selectors (obligatorios): Selectores CSS para extraer contenido
Ejemplo:
Extract the main heading and first paragraph from https://developers.cloudflare.com/browser-rendering/ using the selectors h1 and p.Resume el contenido web para un contexto LLM más conciso.
Parámetros:
url (obligatorio): URL para resumir
maxLength (opcional): Longitud máxima del resumen
Ejemplo:
Summarize the content from https://developers.cloudflare.com/browser-rendering/ in 300 words or less.Toma una captura de pantalla de una página web.
Parámetros:
url (obligatorio): URL para tomar una captura de pantalla
width (opcional): Ancho de la ventana gráfica en píxeles (predeterminado: 1280)
height (opcional): altura de la ventana gráfica en píxeles (valor predeterminado: 800)
fullPage (opcional): si se debe tomar una captura de pantalla de la página completa o solo de la ventana gráfica (predeterminado: falso)
Ejemplo:
Take a screenshot of https://developers.cloudflare.com/browser-rendering/ with a width of 1024 pixels.El servidor MCP utiliza un registro completo con los siguientes prefijos:
[Setup] : Inicialización y configuración
[API] : Solicitudes y respuestas de API
[Error] : Manejo de errores y depuración
Para ver los registros:
Escritorio de Claude : Verifique los registros en ~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp*.log (macOS) o %APPDATA%\Claude\Logs\mcp*.log (Windows)
Cline : Los registros aparecen en la consola de salida de la extensión VSCode
"La variable de entorno BROWSER_RENDERING_API no está configurada"
Asegúrese de haber configurado la URL correcta para su Cloudflare Worker en la configuración del servidor MCP
La API de Cloudflare Worker no está disponible o no está configurada.
Verifique que su Cloudflare Worker esté implementado y en ejecución
Compruebe que la URL sea correcta y accesible
"La vinculación del navegador no está disponible"
Asegúrese de haber configurado el enlace de representación del navegador en su Cloudflare Worker
"El enlace KV de SCREENPHOTOS no está disponible"
Asegúrese de haber configurado el enlace del espacio de nombres KV en su Cloudflare Worker
src/index.ts : Punto de entrada principal
src/server.ts : implementación del servidor MCP
src/browser-client.ts : Cliente para interactuar con la representación del navegador de Cloudflare
src/content-processor.ts : Procesa contenido web para el contexto LLM
puppeteer-worker.js : Implementación de Cloudflare Worker
npm run buildEl proyecto incluye un script de prueba completo que verifica que todas las herramientas MCP funcionen correctamente:
npm testEsto hará lo siguiente:
Iniciar el servidor MCP
Pruebe cada herramienta con solicitudes de muestra
Verificar las respuestas
Proporcionar un resumen de los resultados de las pruebas
También puede ejecutar pruebas individuales para componentes específicos:
# Test the Puppeteer integration
npm run test:puppeteerPara que las pruebas funcionen correctamente, asegúrese de tener:
Construí el proyecto con npm run build
Establezca la variable de entorno BROWSER_RENDERING_API en la URL de su trabajador de Cloudflare
Se implementó Cloudflare Worker con los enlaces necesarios
Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT)
Extracts structured content from a web page using CSS selectors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selectors | Yes | CSS selectors to extract content | |
| url | Yes | URL to extract content from |
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 what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if it fetches the page internally, handles errors, requires internet access, has rate limits, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about extraction, content type, source, and method. It's efficiently structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of web extraction (involving network calls, parsing, and structured data output), the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits. With no annotations and only basic parameter coverage, it fails to provide enough context for effective use in real-world scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'selectors') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extracts structured content from a web page using CSS selectors'. It specifies the verb ('extracts'), resource ('structured content'), and method ('CSS selectors'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_page' or 'summarize_content', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 extraction is preferred over fetching the whole page, searching documentation, summarizing, or taking a screenshot. Without any context or exclusions, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetches and processes a web page for LLM context
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxContentLength | No | Maximum content length to return | |
| url | Yes | URL to fetch |
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 mentions 'fetches and processes' but doesn't specify what processing entails (e.g., cleaning HTML, extracting text, handling errors), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens with invalid URLs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of web fetching (external calls, potential errors) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or processing behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable tool invocation in varied contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'maxContentLength'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for URLs or units for content length. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fetches and processes') and resource ('a web page'), with the purpose being to provide 'LLM context'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'take_screenshot' (visual capture) and 'summarize_content' (summarization), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'extract_structured_content' or 'search_documentation' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'extract_structured_content' or 'search_documentation'. The description implies usage for web page retrieval for LLM context, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Searches Cloudflare documentation and returns relevant content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query |
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 tool searches and returns content, but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether it performs web searches, accesses a local database, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the returned content takes (e.g., text snippets, links, full documents).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could potentially be more structured with additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of content is returned (snippets, full pages, metadata), how results are ranked, whether authentication is needed, or any limitations. Given the lack of structured fields, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('query' and 'maxResults'). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as search syntax examples or result format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('Cloudflare documentation'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling tools like 'fetch_page' or 'extract_structured_content', which might also retrieve documentation content in different ways.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 any prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to sibling tools like 'fetch_page' (which might retrieve a specific page) or 'summarize_content' (which might process content).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarizes web content for more concise LLM context
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxLength | No | Maximum length of the summary | |
| url | Yes | URL to summarize |
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 tool 'summarizes web content' but doesn't describe how it works (e.g., extraction method, processing time, error handling), what limitations exist (e.g., supported content types, rate limits), or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 purpose and includes a clear goal, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of summarizing web content, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, potential errors, or behavioral traits like content processing methods. For a tool with 2 parameters and significant operational implications, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('url' and 'maxLength'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for 'url' or typical values for 'maxLength'. 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('summarizes') and resource ('web content'), and it provides the goal ('for more concise LLM context'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_structured_content' or 'fetch_page', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'extract_structured_content' or 'fetch_page'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this summarization tool is preferred over other content-handling siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Takes a screenshot of a web page and returns it as an image
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fullPage | No | Whether to take a screenshot of the full page or just the viewport (default: false) | |
| height | No | Height of the viewport in pixels (default: 800) | |
| url | Yes | URL to take a screenshot of | |
| width | No | Width of the viewport in pixels (default: 1280) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose potential issues like authentication needs for restricted pages, rate limits, performance impacts, or what happens with invalid URLs. The phrase 'returns it as an image' hints at output but doesn't specify format (e.g., PNG, JPEG) or handling of errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (capturing web pages with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error cases, output format details, or prerequisites (e.g., network access). For a tool that interacts with external resources and returns binary data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage. It doesn't explain interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'fullPage' affects 'height'/'width') or provide usage examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('takes a screenshot') and resource ('of a web page'), with the specific output format ('returns it as an image'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fetch_page' (which likely retrieves HTML) and 'extract_structured_content' (which processes content rather than capturing visuals).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It doesn't mention scenarios like needing visual verification, capturing dynamic content, or comparing with text-based tools like 'summarize_content' or 'fetch_page'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0extract_structured_contentfetch_pagesearch_documentationsummarize_contenttake_screenshotScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: extract_structured_content targets specific elements, fetch_page retrieves full pages, search_documentation queries documentation, summarize_content condenses content, and take_screenshot captures visual output. An agent can easily differentiate between these functions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming (e.g., extract_structured_content, fetch_page, search_documentation). This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy to understand for an agent.
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for browser rendering and content processing tasks. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects like fetching, extracting, searching, summarizing, and screenshotting, without being overly sparse or bloated.
The toolset covers core browser rendering workflows (fetching, extracting, summarizing, screenshotting) and includes a domain-specific search function. A minor gap exists in advanced interactions like form submission or navigation, but agents can work around this for most use cases.
Turn any public website into an MCP server for agents to search, read and navigate.
MCP server for AI agents to plan, verify, and deploy Cloudflare-native apps.
Docs: https://docs.keenable.ai/mcp-server Keenable is a free, remote MCP server that gives agents access to the web index. Search the web with ranked results and date/site filters, then fetch any indexed page as clean markdown. Works out of the box with no account or API key.
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: ai-agent-scratchpad