BrowserStack MCP server

Official

by browserstack

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: getFailuresInLastRun is for debugging test failures, runAppLiveSession is for manual mobile app testing, runBrowserLiveSession is for manual website testing, runTestsOnBrowserStack is for test execution instructions, and startAccessibilityScan is for accessibility scanning. The descriptions reinforce these distinct use cases, making tool selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a mixed pattern: three tools use 'run' as a verb (runAppLiveSession, runBrowserLiveSession, runTestsOnBrowserStack), while getFailuresInLastRun uses 'get' and startAccessibilityScan uses 'start'. All tools use camelCase consistently, but the verb choices vary, creating a readable but not fully consistent convention across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this is well-scoped for a BrowserStack testing server. Each tool serves a distinct and essential function in the testing workflow—debugging, manual testing (app and browser), test execution, and accessibility scanning—making the count appropriate without being too sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers key BrowserStack functionalities: debugging failures, manual testing for apps and browsers, test execution guidance, and accessibility scanning. Minor gaps might include automated test reporting or configuration management, but the core workflows are well-covered, allowing agents to perform most common testing tasks effectively.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 6 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 64 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 11, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'get instructions' but does not clarify what form these instructions take (e.g., text, links, steps), whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
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 that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be slightly more informative to improve utility while maintaining brevity.
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 tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the instructions entail, how they are generated, or what the user should expect as a result. This leaves too many gaps for effective agent use, especially without behavioral context or output details.
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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why these inputs are needed for generating instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 tool's purpose as 'to get instructions for running tests on BrowserStack', which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('get instructions') and target ('running tests on BrowserStack'), but lacks specificity about what kind of instructions or how they are delivered. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'runAppLiveSession' or 'runBrowserLiveSession', which might also involve BrowserStack testing.
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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and there is no comparison to sibling tools like 'runAppLiveSession' or 'startAccessibilityScan'. Usage is implied only by the purpose, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.
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 tool starts a scan but doesn't describe what the scan entails (e.g., duration, asynchronous nature, permissions required, rate limits, or what 'start' implies in terms of immediate results). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely initiates a process.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured if it included key behavioral details.
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 starting a scan (likely an asynchronous operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting the scan, expected outputs, error handling, or how to retrieve results, leaving critical gaps for agent usage.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'pageURL'). The description mentions 'a list of URLs' but the schema only has one 'pageURL' parameter, which adds minor confusion. However, since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add meaningful semantic details beyond the schema.
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 ('start an accessibility scan') and the target ('for a list of URLs on BrowserStack'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' or 'runBrowserLiveSession', which might also involve scanning or testing URLs, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to sibling tools like 'getFailuresInLastRun' or 'runTestsOnBrowserStack', leaving the agent without context for selection.
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 mentions the tool uses BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure and can be used for debugging, but doesn't describe what happens during the session, whether it's interactive or automated, session duration limits, authentication requirements, or what output to expect. Significant behavioral details are missing for a cloud-based testing tool.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and primary use cases. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific examples. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the session starts, what kind of output or interface the user gets, session management, or error handling. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered for a cloud-based testing tool.
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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 tool's purpose: 'manually check their app on a particular mobile device using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure' with specific use cases like debugging crashes and slow performance. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on mobile app testing rather than browser sessions or test automation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context ('when user wants to manually check their app') and implies this is for interactive debugging rather than automated testing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. sibling tools like 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' or 'runBrowserLiveSession', nor does it mention any 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 but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure and manual checking, but doesn't disclose whether this starts a live session, requires authentication, has time/rate limits, costs, or what happens after the check. For a tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
Two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and use cases without wasted words. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks completeness about behavioral aspects (e.g., session management, authentication, limitations). It's minimally viable for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for understanding how it behaves during/after execution.
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 5 parameters thoroughly with examples and guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying these parameters are needed for browser/OS/URL selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'manually check their website on a particular browser and OS combination using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure' with specific use cases like debugging layout issues. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on manual website testing (vs. getFailuresInLastRun for failures, runAppLiveSession for apps, etc.), though not explicitly contrasting each sibling.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use it: 'when user wants to manually check their website on a particular browser and OS combination' for debugging layout/compatibility issues. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies this is for manual website testing vs. automated testing or other functions.
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 mentions the prerequisite (browserstack.yml file) and implies a read-only debugging function, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., failure details format). For a tool with no annotations, 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a usage condition. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a debugging tool with two required parameters, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (buildName and projectName) in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'debug failures in the last run of the test suite on BrowserStack.' It specifies the action (debug failures) and resource (test suite on BrowserStack), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' or 'startAccessibilityScan' beyond the debugging focus.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use only when browserstack.yml file is present in the project root.' This gives a prerequisite condition, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose this over 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' for debugging versus execution.
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-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/browserstack/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/browserstack/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/browserstack/mcp-server'

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