Skip to main content
Glama
dragons96

MCP-Undetected-Chromedriver

by dragons96

browser_get_visible_text

Extract visible text from web pages using an automation tool designed to bypass anti-bot detection, enabling reliable scraping and testing on protected sites.

Instructions

Get the visible text of the current page

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for 'browser_get_visible_text' tool. It is registered via @mcp.tool() decorator. Executes JavaScript to collect and join visible text content from all elements on the page that are not hidden.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def browser_get_visible_text():
        """Get the visible text of the current page"""
    
        async def get_visible_text_handler(driver: uc.Chrome):
            # 使用JavaScript获取页面中所有可见文本内容
            script = """
            return Array.from(document.body.querySelectorAll('*'))
                .filter(el => {
                    const style = window.getComputedStyle(el);
                    return !!(el.textContent.trim()) && 
                           style.display !== 'none' && 
                           style.visibility !== 'hidden' &&
                           style.opacity !== '0';
                })
                .map(el => el.textContent.trim())
                .filter(text => text)
                .join('\\n');
            """
            visible_text = driver.execute_script(script)
            return await create_success_response(visible_text)
    
        return await tool.safe_execute(
            ToolContext(webdriver=await ensure_browser()), get_visible_text_handler
        )
  • Registration of the 'browser_get_visible_text' tool using FastMCP's @mcp.tool() decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

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 (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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/dragons96/mcp-undetected-chromedriver'

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