Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Camoufox MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Browser automation MCP server using Camoufox anti-detect browser with fingerprint spoofing, geolocation/timezone spoofing, and human-like cursor movement.
      14
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server for stealth browser automation that uses human-like interaction patterns to bypass bot detection via the Chrome DevTools Protocol. It enables users to navigate, interact with elements, and capture data from websites using undetectable behaviors like Bezier mouse movements and Gaussian typing delays.
      82 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      This MCP server exposes an anti-detect Firefox browser that passes bot-detection tests, allowing LLMs to automate web interactions with humanized clicks and fingerprint randomization.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A stealth-enhanced browser automation MCP server for AI agents to interact with websites while bypassing anti-bot detection mechanisms like Cloudflare and reCAPTCHA.
      9
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides a stealth-enhanced Playwright browser automation engine with anti-detection features, enabling AI agents to navigate websites, interact with elements, and bypass anti-bot systems.
      24
      35 PyPI
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An anti-detection browser MCP server designed for JavaScript reverse engineering through the Camoufox engine. It enables AI assistants to perform dynamic debugging, function hooking, and network interception while bypassing sophisticated bot detection mechanisms.
      39
      514
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.1/5.0

    Scored across 36 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap that could cause confusion. For example, 'evaluate_isolated' and 'evaluate_mainworld' both execute JavaScript but in different contexts, which is clarified in descriptions, yet their similar names might lead to misselection. Tools like 'fill' and 'fill_form' also have overlapping functionality, though 'fill_form' handles multiple fields. Overall, descriptions help differentiate, but some boundaries are unclear.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'clear_console_logs', 'get_page_text', 'start_recording'), making them predictable and readable. There are minor deviations, such as 'evaluate_isolated' and 'evaluate_mainworld' using adjectives instead of nouns, and 'init_user_config' using 'init' instead of a more standard verb like 'initialize'. However, the overall naming scheme is coherent and easy to follow.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 36 tools, the count is excessive for a browser automation server, leading to potential cognitive overload and reduced usability. A typical well-scoped server in this domain should have 10-20 tools; this set includes many granular operations (e.g., separate tools for starting/stopping console and network capture) that could be consolidated. The high number makes the tool surface feel heavy and less intuitive for agents.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for browser automation, including navigation, interaction (click, hover, drag), form handling, JavaScript execution, logging, network control, and state management. It supports full CRUD-like operations for logs and captures, and there are no obvious gaps—tools like 'wait_for' and 'wait_for_navigation' ensure robust workflow support. The domain is well-covered without dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues