fast-browser-mcp

by donleqt

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: act performs an action, diff returns diffs, errors collects logs, open starts a session, report generates a report, sessions lists sessions, snapshot captures snapshots, and state returns session state. No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'fast_browser_' prefix and a verb_noun structure (e.g., fast_browser_act, fast_browser_diff). No deviations.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a browser automation server, covering core operations (open, act, snapshot, diff, errors, report, sessions, state) without being overly numerous or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The set covers key lifecycle operations (open, act, capture, diff, report), but missing an explicit 'close' or 'quit' tool for tearing down sessions, which may be a minor gap.
Average 2.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by stating 'Return', but does not mention whether the operation is safe, idempotent, or has side effects. Critical behaviors such as what happens if no diff exists, authentication requirements, or rate limits are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise in word count (one sentence) but is under-specified for an agent to use effectively. It sacrifices necessary details for brevity, making it too sparse. While it avoids fluff, it omits important information that should be included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so. It does not explain what a diff is, the output format, error conditions, or behavior when no diff exists. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the sessionId parameter beyond what the schema provides (string, minLength 1). It fails to explain how the sessionId is used, format expectations, or constraints. For a single-parameter tool, the description should at least clarify the parameter's role.
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 verb 'Return', the resource 'latest saved diff', and the context 'for a session'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like fast_browser_snapshot and fast_browser_state, as it specifically retrieves a diff. However, it could be more explicit about what a 'diff' entails, such as comparing two snapshots.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when other tools like fast_browser_snapshot or fast_browser_report might be preferred.
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?
Annotations are absent, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'collect and store' without revealing side effects (e.g., whether it appends or replaces, if it clears previous errors, or if it requires an active session). Leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very short, but lacks structure such as examples, usage notes, or multiple sentences. It is minimal but not optimally informative. Every sentence should earn its place; here, one sentence attempts too much.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the stored error summary contains, how it can be retrieved, or the lifecycle of the summary. It does not, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description provides no details about the required sessionId parameter. The agent gets no guidance on what sessionId represents or how to obtain it.
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?
Description states it collects console and network failures and stores an error summary. This clearly indicates the tool's function but does not distinguish it from sibling tools that also deal with browser state, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No mention of when to use this tool over siblings like fast_browser_state or fast_browser_snapshot. Lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
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 full burden. It implies a read operation by 'Return' but does not disclose whether there are side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The mention of 'files and recent timeline' adds some context but is insufficient.
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?
One efficient sentence with no wasted words, appropriate for a simple tool. Could be slightly improved with structuring, but it is concise without being under-specified.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'QA state' contains, error conditions, or how the sessionId relates to the return value, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 1 parameter (sessionId) with 0% description coverage, yet the description provides no additional meaning about the parameter, such as its format or purpose beyond what the schema minimally 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 clearly states the tool returns compact session QA state from files and recent timeline, with a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like fast_browser_act or fast_browser_snapshot.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings for actions, diffs, errors, etc., the description should indicate the appropriate context for invoking this state-retrieval tool.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool saves a file, implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects like overwriting, file location, or permissions required. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 a single sentence of 11 words, with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, which is appropriate for a tool with one parameter.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits important context such as what the report contains, where it is saved, and whether it overwrites existing files. This gap is not filled by annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (the single parameter sessionId lacks any description in the schema). The tool description does not add meaning beyond naming the parameter; it does not clarify the format or constraints of sessionId.
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 generates and saves a QA report markdown file for a session, using a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks detail about the report's contents, which would further differentiate it from sibling tools like fast_browser_diff or fast_browser_errors.
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 (e.g., for creating a structured summary vs. examining specific errors). There is no indication of prerequisites or context.
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 present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it captures and diffs, but does not mention side effects, whether it is destructive, or what happens to previous snapshots.
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 very concise at 8 words and front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too brief to fully inform use.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description still lacks behavioral details, usage context, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for effective agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning but does not. The single parameter 'sessionId' is not explained beyond its name and schema type; the purpose within the tool is inferred.
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 captures a new snapshot and diffs against previous. The verb 'capture' and resource 'snapshot' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fast_browser_diff' which likely only diffs existing snapshots.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fast_browser_diff. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically refreshes snapshot, diff, and errors after the action, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as destructiveness, authorization needs, or side effects on session state.
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 exceptionally concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action and side effect. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter usage, return behavior, or error states, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'sessionId', 'ref', or 'value', which are critical for correct invocation. Only 'action' is implied by 'browser action', but the meaning of 'ref' and 'value' remains unclear.
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 it runs one browser action (implying click, fill, type, press from the schema) and automatically refreshes snapshot, diff, and errors, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle those side effects separately. It lacks specificity on the exact action types but is still clear.
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, when not to use it, or contrast with sibling tools like fast_browser_state or fast_browser_report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that a browser session is initialized or reused, and a snapshot is stored. However, it does not explain what 'initialize' means, what happens on invalid URLs or sessionIds, browser type, or snapshot content. Some behavioral aspects are hinted but not fully transparent.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It covers the key actions efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the URL opening from session management, but overall it is appropriately concise.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains the core function, but it lacks context about how the snapshot is used by sibling tools or what constitutes a 'session'. For a tool that initiates browser automation, it could provide more context about subsequent steps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'Open a URL' for the url parameter, which is clear but doesn't specify the URI format (covered by schema). For sessionId, it implies the parameter via 'initialize/reuse a browser session', but does not explicitly map sessionId to that behavior. The description provides minimal added value over the raw 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 (open a URL), the resource (URL), and additional actions (initialize/reuse session, store snapshot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fast_browser_act and fast_browser_snapshot by being the entry point. However, the phrase 'initialize/reuse' could be more explicit about session management.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that this is the first tool to call before using other browser tools, nor does it explain when to use a sessionId (e.g., existing session vs. new). Sibling tools exist for actions, diffs, etc., so usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a non-destructive read operation, which is appropriate, but it fails to explicitly state safety or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it lacks details on return format or data nature.
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 a single sentence of six words with no redundancy. Every word is essential for conveying the tool's action and target.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify what a 'session' entails or the format of the list. The current text is adequate for a simple tool but leaves ambiguity about the nature of the returned data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies as the schema coverage is 100% (void) and the description adds no conflict.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'stored browser sessions', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fast_browser_act or fast_browser_state by focusing solely on listing sessions.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.
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:

[![fast-browser-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/donleqt/fast-browser-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/donleqt/fast-browser-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/donleqt/fast-browser-mcp'

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