Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BrowserSolver MCP Server

BrowserSolver MCP Server

Official
by browsersolver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Website Technology

website_technology
Read-only

Fingerprint a public URL to identify its CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, and security tools; choose simple lists or detailed metadata with confidence scores.

Instructions

Website Technology. Map CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, and security tooling exposed by a public URL. Choose simple lists or expert metadata with confidence scores. 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_technology"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoHow much detail to include in the stack report. Default: "expert".
queryYesPublic URL to fingerprint for CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, and security tooling. Include http:// or https://.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotated trait, the 1-credit-per-call cost, plus a hint that results carry confidence scores, but it says nothing about latency, failure modes on unreachable URLs, or result size, so a middling score is right.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the cost note is placed last where it belongs. The opening 'Website Technology.' merely restates the title and is wasted space, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 read-only, three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is fingerprinted, the detail-level choice, and the credit cost, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It falls short only on response shape and behavior for unreachable or non-HTML URLs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning about the mode trade-off (simple lists vs. expert metadata with confidence scores) but does not name the accepted mode values or clarify the fields dot-notation behavior, so it barely exceeds what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource - mapping CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, and security tooling for a public URL - plus the output choice (simple lists vs. expert metadata). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling (e.g. website_rendering, website_crawler) to disambiguate, so the agent must infer the boundary from the resource alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to website_antibot, website_crawler, website_rendering, or website_screenshot. The only guidance given is about the mode trade-off, which is a parameter choice rather than a tool-selection rule.

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