You can use this server to automate and control a Chrome browser instance while bypassing anti-bot detection mechanisms. The MCP-Undetected-Chromedriver provides functionality to:
Navigate to URLs with optional timeouts
Take screenshots of pages or elements
Click on elements (including within iframes)
Fill input fields and select dropdown options
Hover over elements
Execute JavaScript in the browser context
Extract visible text and HTML from pages
Navigate through browser history
Drag elements across the page
Simulate key presses
Save pages as PDF with customizable options
Close browser instances
Provides a wrapper around undetected-chromedriver (a Selenium variant) for bypassing anti-bot detection while automating web browsing tasks, including navigation, screenshots, form filling, and page interaction.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP-Undetected-Chromedriver take a screenshot of the current page and save it as 'homepage.png'"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP service built on undetected-chromedriver, providing a comprehensive interface for automating Chrome browser control while bypassing anti-bot detection.
To install MCP-Undetected-Chromedriver for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @dragons96/mcp-undetected-chromedriver --client claudeRelated MCP server: web-scraper-server
Here's the Claude Desktop configuration to use the Undetected-chromedriver server:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-undetected-chromedriver": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@smithery/cli@latest",
"run",
"@dragons96/mcp-undetected-chromedriver",
"--config",
"{}"
]
}
}
}Python >= 3.11
Chrome browser
# Create virtual environment
uv venv
# Activate virtual environment
# Windows
.venv\Scripts\activate
# Linux/MacOS
source .venv/bin/activate
# Install dependencies
uv pip install -e .MCP-Undetected-Chromedriver is an MCP (Multi Channel Protocol) service that wraps the functionality of the undetected-chromedriver library into a series of easy-to-use APIs. This project is particularly suitable for scenarios that require bypassing modern website anti-bot detection mechanisms in automated testing, data scraping, or web automation scripts.
Based on undetected-chromedriver, effectively bypassing website anti-bot detection
Provides rich browser operation API interfaces
Supports screenshots, PDF export, and other functionalities
Supports complex page interaction operations such as clicking, form filling, dragging, etc.
Seamlessly integrates with other tools in the MCP ecosystem
Optimize browser driver management and handle driver interruptions
Extend API capabilities
Add more comprehensive error handling and logging
Improve documentation with more usage examples
Add support for browser profiles and extensions
mcp-server-undetected-chromedriverThe service provides the following main API interfaces:
browser_navigate: Navigate to a specified URL
browser_screenshot: Take a screenshot of the current page
browser_click: Click on page elements
browser_iframe_click: Click on elements within an iframe
browser_fill: Fill content in input fields
browser_select: Select options in dropdown selection boxes
browser_hover: Hover the mouse over elements
browser_evalute: Execute JavaScript code
browser_close: Close the browser
browser_get_visible_text: Get visible text on the page
browser_get_visible_html: Get visible HTML on the page
browser_go_back: Navigate backward in browser history
browser_go_forward: Navigate forward in browser history
browser_drag: Drag elements
browser_press_key: Simulate key presses
browser_save_as_pdf: Save the page as a PDF
from mcp.client import Client
# Create MCP client
client = Client()
client.start("undetected-chromedriver-mcp-server")
# Navigate to website
response = client.call("browser_navigate", {"url": "https://example.com"})
print(response)
# Take a screenshot
response = client.call("browser_screenshot", {"name": "example"})
print(response)
# Get page text
response = client.call("browser_get_visible_text")
print(response.content[0].text)
# Close the browser
client.call("browser_close")This service uses the undetected-chromedriver library to create a specialized Chrome browser instance that effectively evades common anti-bot detection mechanisms. The service wraps these features through the MCP protocol, providing an easy-to-use API interface that makes automated testing and web scraping more convenient.
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
Bug reports and feature requests are welcome on the GitHub Issues page. If you want to contribute code, please create an issue to discuss your ideas first.
Q: Why choose undetected-chromedriver instead of the standard selenium webdriver?
A: undetected-chromedriver is specifically designed to bypass anti-bot detection mechanisms of modern websites, such as Cloudflare, Distil Networks, etc., making it more reliable for data scraping and automated testing scenarios.
Q: How does the service handle browser instances?
A: The service maintains a global browser instance, which is automatically created when an API requiring a browser is first called. The browser can be explicitly closed using the browser_close API.
Q: How to handle elements within iframes?
A: The browser_iframe_click API can directly operate on elements within iframes, without the need to manually switch frame contexts.
Click an element on the page
Args:
selector: The selector of the element to click - required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions clicking but fails to explain what happens after the click (e.g., page navigation, event triggers), error conditions (e.g., if selector not found), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a parameter note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be more integrated. Overall, it's efficient but could be slightly more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or interaction with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies that 'selector' is required and identifies it as 'the selector of the element to click', but doesn't elaborate on selector syntax, examples, or constraints. Given the low schema coverage, this provides some compensation but is insufficient for full clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('click') and target ('an element on the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'browser_iframe_click', which performs a similar action in a different context, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'browser_iframe_click' or other interaction methods. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a page must be loaded) or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Close the browser and release all resources
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of releasing resources, which is useful context beyond just closing. However, it does not mention side effects like ending all active sessions or whether the action is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes necessary additional context ('release all resources') without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and resource release, but could benefit from mentioning irreversible effects or typical usage scenarios to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Close') and resource ('the browser'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_screenshot. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context—closing the browser when done with browsing tasks—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Drag an element to another element
Args:
sourceSelector: The selector for the element to drag - required
targetSelector: The selector for the target location - required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceSelector | Yes | ||
| targetSelector | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical traits like whether it simulates a mouse drag, handles drag-and-drop events, requires elements to be in a draggable state, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a brief parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter descriptions are minimal and could be more informative. The structure is clear, but the content is somewhat sparse, not fully earning its place in terms of depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a drag operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or interaction details like drag duration or mouse button usage. For a tool that likely involves UI simulation and potential side effects, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds basic semantics by naming the parameters and stating they are required, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details. The description doesn't explain what a 'selector' is, provide examples, or clarify format expectations, offering only minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Drag an element to another element'), specifying both the source and target elements. It distinguishes from siblings like 'browser_click' or 'browser_hover' by focusing on drag-and-drop interactions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the browser context or differentiate from potential non-browser drag tools, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'browser_click' for simple interactions or 'browser_select' for dropdowns. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring elements to be visible or draggable, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Evaluate a JavaScript expression in the browser console
Args:
script: The JavaScript expression to evaluate - required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('evaluate a JavaScript expression') but doesn't describe what happens during evaluation (e.g., execution context, error handling, return values, or side effects like page modifications). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter. The structure is clear and front-loaded, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished for optimal readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of evaluating JavaScript in a browser (a potentially powerful and risky operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details, it fails to address critical aspects like security implications, execution context, or what the evaluation returns, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('script: The JavaScript expression to evaluate - required'), which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't provide details on script format, constraints, or examples, offering only minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('JavaScript expression in the browser console'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate, which perform different browser interactions rather than JavaScript evaluation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 any prerequisites, context for JavaScript evaluation, or how it differs from other browser tools like browser_get_visible_html or browser_select, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fill out an input field
Args:
selector: CSS selector for input field - required
value: The value to fill - required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes | ||
| value | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('fill out') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing text, handles validation, requires the field to be visible/editable, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting is slightly disjointed, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a browser interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, side effects, and interaction with sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'selector' is a 'CSS selector for input field' and 'value' is 'The value to fill', which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it does not provide examples, format details, or constraints, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'fill out an input field' with a specific verb ('fill out') and resource ('input field'). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click (clicking) or browser_press_key (keyboard input), though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 when to choose browser_fill over browser_press_key for text input, or prerequisites like needing a focused field. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the HTML of the current page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns only visible HTML, handles dynamic content, requires page load completion, or has any side effects. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or usage context. For a read operation in a browser context, more completeness would include information on what 'visible HTML' entails or limitations, but it's not entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool without over-explaining.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('HTML of the current page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_get_visible_text', but the specificity of 'HTML' versus 'text' provides implicit distinction. This is not a tautology as it adds meaningful context beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., needing an active browser session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'browser_get_visible_text' for text extraction or 'browser_screenshot' for visual capture. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the visible text of the current page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns only human-readable text, handles dynamic content, or has performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate as a basic statement of purpose. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'visible text' includes/excludes) and usage context, which could be helpful despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'visible text of the current page', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_get_visible_html by specifying 'text' rather than HTML, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., requires a page to be loaded), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like browser_get_visible_html, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Navigate back in browser history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active browser session, what happens if no history exists, or if it returns to the previous page or a specific point. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple navigation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., page change) or failure (e.g., error if no history), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Navigate back in browser history' clearly states the specific action (navigate back) and the resource (browser history). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_go_forward (forward navigation) and browser_navigate (general navigation), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when browser history has previous pages) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_navigate or browser_go_forward. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, falling short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Navigate forward in browser history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't disclose what happens when no forward history exists (error? no-op?), whether it waits for page load, or any side effects. For a navigation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's behavioral complexity (navigation with potential state dependencies) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or interaction with browser state, leaving the agent with incomplete operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this case. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Navigate forward') and resource ('browser history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'browser_go_back', which performs the opposite navigation action in history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like requiring forward history to exist) or compare it to other navigation methods like 'browser_navigate' for direct URL access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Hover over an element on the page
Args:
selector: CSS selector for element to hover over - required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes |
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 only states the action ('hover over') without mentioning potential side effects (e.g., UI changes, network requests), error conditions, or what happens if the selector is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a browser.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action ('Hover over an element on the page') and efficiently includes parameter details in a separate section. It avoids unnecessary words, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of browser interactions and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the hover action entails, potential outcomes, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective use in a browser automation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'selector' parameter is a 'CSS selector for element to hover over - required', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but minimal, meeting the baseline for such a simple case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('hover over') and resource ('an element on the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_press_key by specifying the hover action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. While the description implies it's for hovering over elements, it doesn't specify scenarios where hovering is appropriate (e.g., triggering dropdowns or tooltips) or when other tools like browser_click might be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Click an element inside an iframe on the page
Args:
iframeSelector: The selector of the iframe - required
selector: The selector of the element to click - required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iframeSelector | Yes | ||
| selector | Yes |
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 action ('Click') but does not cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the iframe or element is not found), side effects (e.g., page navigation or state changes), or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated. Overall, it is 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with iframes and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses details on return values, error cases, and interaction nuances (e.g., if the click triggers JavaScript events). For a tool with potential side effects and technical requirements, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds basic meaning by explaining that 'iframeSelector' targets the iframe and 'selector' targets the element to click, which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it does not provide details on selector syntax, examples, or constraints, so the value beyond the schema is limited to high-level intent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Click an element') and the resource ('inside an iframe on the page'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_click' (which likely clicks elements outside iframes), leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'inside an iframe,' suggesting it should be used for iframe-contained elements versus 'browser_click' for non-iframe elements. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, such as requiring the iframe to be accessible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Press a key on the keyboard
Args:
key: The key to press - required, (e.g. 'Enter', 'ArrowDown', 'a')
selector: Optional CSS selector to focus on before pressing the key - optional
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| selector | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details such as whether it simulates a single key press or holds, error handling (e.g., if selector is invalid), performance implications, or what happens after pressing (e.g., page navigation). This leaves gaps for an agent to understand execution nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It uses bullet-like formatting for args, which aids readability. However, the second sentence could be more front-loaded, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'optional' in the selector description).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic context but is incomplete. It covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and details on return values or errors, which are crucial for a tool with potential side effects in a browser environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'key' as the key to press with examples (e.g., 'Enter', 'ArrowDown', 'a') and 'selector' as an optional CSS selector to focus on first. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the schema's minimal titles, though it could provide more detail on key formats or selector usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Press a key on the keyboard') and specifies the resource (keyboard interaction in a browser context). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click or browser_fill by focusing on keyboard input rather than mouse actions or form filling. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., browser_select might also involve keyboard use).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for keyboard interactions in a browser, and the optional 'selector' parameter suggests it can focus on elements first. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like browser_fill for text input or browser_click for mouse actions, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Save the current page as a PDF
Args:
outputPath: The path to save the PDF to - required
filename: The name of the PDF file - optional, default is "page.pdf"
format: The format of the PDF - optional, default is "A4" (e.g. "A4", "LETTER", "LEGAL", "TABLOID")
printBackground: Whether to print the background - optional, default is True
margin: The margin of the PDF - optional, default is None (e.g. {"top": "1cm", "right": "1cm", "bottom": "1cm", "left": "1cm"})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | page.pdf | |
| format | No | A4 | |
| margin | No | ||
| outputPath | Yes | ||
| printBackground | No |
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 states the action ('save') but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this overwrites existing files, what happens on invalid paths, if it requires specific page states (e.g., fully loaded), or error conditions. The description covers what the tool does but not how it behaves in edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose statement followed by parameter details. The parameter explanations are efficient with required/optional indicators, defaults, and examples. Minor room for improvement: could be more front-loaded with key behavioral information, but overall sentences earn their place without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks information about return values (success/failure indicators), error handling, or dependencies on browser state. For a file-writing tool with complex parameters, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate - and it does excellently. For all 5 parameters, it provides clear semantics: outputPath is 'required', filename default is 'page.pdf', format examples include 'A4', 'LETTER', etc., printBackground default is 'True', and margin examples show object structure. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save the current page as a PDF' - a specific verb ('save') and resource ('current page as PDF'). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_screenshot (image capture) and browser_get_visible_html/text (content extraction), though not explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It doesn't mention when PDF saving is preferable over browser_screenshot for document capture, or prerequisites like needing a page loaded in the browser. The description provides only functional information without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Take a screenshot of the current page or a specific element
Args:
name: The name of the screenshot - required, default is "screenshot"
storeBase64: Whether to store the screenshot as a base64 string - optional, default is True
downloadsDir: The directory to save the screenshot to - optional, default is the user's Downloads directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| downloadsDir | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| storeBase64 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that screenshots can be saved to a directory or stored as base64, but fails to cover critical aspects such as whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the page isn't loaded, error handling, or the format of the output. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are concise and directly relevant. However, the structure could be improved by separating usage guidance from parameter details, and some sentences could be more tightly integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a screenshot tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format (e.g., what is returned when storeBase64 is true/false), error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., requires an open browser page), and how it interacts with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'name' is for the screenshot name, 'storeBase64' for base64 storage, 'downloadsDir' for save location). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate—details like default values or specific constraints are missing. The baseline is adjusted due to the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Take a screenshot') and resources ('current page or a specific element'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_save_as_pdf or browser_get_visible_html. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as browser_click or browser_hover, which are also page interaction tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose browser_screenshot over browser_save_as_pdf for capturing page content, or how it relates to other browser interaction tools like browser_get_visible_html. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Select an element on the page with Select tag
Args:
selector: CSS selector for element to select - required
value: The value to select - required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes | ||
| value | Yes |
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 states the action ('select an element') but lacks crucial behavioral details: whether this requires the page to be in a specific state, what happens if the element isn't found, whether it triggers page changes, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The description provides only basic operational information without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated. No wasted words, but the formatting with 'Args:' header feels slightly verbose for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it explains what the tool does and what parameters mean at a basic level, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, behavioral constraints, and how this tool differs from similar siblings. For a browser interaction tool with no structured metadata, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'selector: CSS selector for element to select - required' and 'value: The value to select - required'. This explains what each parameter represents, but doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or relationship between parameters. The description adds value beyond the bare schema but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Select an element on the page with Select tag' - this specifies the verb ('select'), resource ('element on the page'), and target type ('Select tag'). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click or browser_fill by focusing specifically on dropdown/select elements. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. While the mention of 'Select tag' implies it's for dropdown elements, there's no explicit comparison to other tools like browser_click or browser_fill that might handle similar interactions. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0browser_clickbrowser_closebrowser_dragbrowser_evalutebrowser_fillbrowser_get_visible_htmlbrowser_get_visible_textbrowser_go_backbrowser_go_forwardbrowser_hoverbrowser_iframe_clickbrowser_navigatebrowser_press_keybrowser_save_as_pdfbrowser_screenshotbrowser_selectMost tools have distinct purposes targeting specific browser automation tasks like navigation, interaction, and content extraction. However, some overlap exists between browser_click and browser_iframe_click, where the latter is essentially a specialized version of the former for iframes, which could cause minor confusion.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with a clear 'browser_' prefix followed by a verb_noun structure (e.g., browser_click, browser_navigate, browser_screenshot). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a browser automation server, covering a wide range of common web interaction tasks. It might feel a bit heavy, but each tool appears to serve a specific function without obvious redundancy.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for core browser automation, including navigation, clicking, typing, hovering, and content extraction. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for handling cookies, managing tabs, or waiting for elements, but agents can likely work around these using existing tools like browser_evalute or timeouts.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Crawl, scrape, search the web, and automate browsers at scale with anti-bot bypass.
Hosted real Google Chrome MCP with per-user persistent state. Navigate, click, type, screenshot.
Browser MCP for logged-in tasks. Uses your Chrome — credentials stay local. Zero-token replay.
ScrapeUnblocker: ScrapeUnblocker allows to bypass anti-bot services and scrape the full page source.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dragons96/mcp-undetected-chromedriver'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
