Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BrowserSolver MCP Server

BrowserSolver MCP Server

Official
by browsersolver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Website Antibot

website_antibot
Read-only

Scans a URL to identify its bot-protection vendor, helping you select the appropriate BrowserSolver fetch tier before making requests.

Instructions

Website Antibot. Single-pass scan that names the bot-protection vendor in front of a URL so you can choose the right BrowserSolver fetch tier next. Credit cost: 1 credit per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "website_antibot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesFull URL or bare domain to scan for bot-protection vendors.
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.
timeoutNoUpper bound for waiting on the target HTTP response, expressed in seconds (defaults to 15).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: a single pass (no iteration/retry implied) and a fixed cost of 1 credit per call. It does not say what happens on an unreachable host or when no vendor is detected, and there is no output schema to fall back on for return shape.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the cost note. The workflow hint and the credit cost each earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter read-only scan with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and next-step usage. The main remaining gap is result handling — what a negative or failed scan looks like — which matters somewhat given no output schema exists, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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 query, fields and timeout are all documented in the schema with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own beyond implying the query is a URL. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Single-pass scan that names the bot-protection vendor in front of a URL.' It also signals its place in a workflow ('choose the right BrowserSolver fetch tier next'), which implicitly distinguishes it from fetch-oriented siblings like website_webunlocker or website_rendering, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear usage context: run this scan first, then pick a BrowserSolver fetch tier based on the vendor it reports. The credit cost is stated, giving a tradeoff signal. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to skip the scan and go straight to a fetch tier), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools