Playwright MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific browser automation actions: clicking, closing, navigating, capturing accessibility snapshots, taking screenshots, and typing text. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'browser_' prefix with descriptive action suffixes (click, close, navigate, snapshot, take_screenshot, type). This uniform snake_case pattern makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count4/5
Six tools is reasonable for a browser automation server, covering core interactions like navigation, input, and capture. It could be slightly expanded with tools for element selection or waiting, but the current count is well-scoped and manageable.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover basic navigation, interaction, and capture functions, but there are notable gaps for common automation tasks: no tools for selecting elements (e.g., by CSS/XPath), waiting for conditions, handling alerts/dialogs, or executing JavaScript. This may limit agent effectiveness in complex scenarios.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Click on an element' implies a mutation action (interacting with the browser), but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as what happens on failure (e.g., if element not found), whether it waits for page loads, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs browser interactions.
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 'Click on an element' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It earns its place by directly stating the tool's function, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of browser interaction tools, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description alone fails to address key context like error handling, dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'browser_snapshot'), or what constitutes a successful click, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('element' as human-readable description and 'ref' as exact target reference). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters interact or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Click on an element' clearly states the action (click) and target (an element), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling interactions like 'browser_type' or 'browser_navigate' in terms of when clicking is the appropriate interaction versus typing or navigation.
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., requiring a page snapshot first), exclusions (e.g., not for non-clickable elements), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'browser_type' for text input. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Navigate to a URL' implies a navigation action but fails to describe key behaviors: whether it opens a new tab or uses an existing one, if it waits for page load, error handling for invalid URLs, or any side effects (e.g., history changes). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic function.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence: 'Navigate to a URL.' Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core action, with no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy. This efficiency makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
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 (a navigation action with potential behavioral nuances) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address what happens after navigation (e.g., success indicators, error responses), nor does it provide context about browser state or interactions. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more descriptive detail is needed to ensure reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it merely restates the tool's purpose without elaborating on parameter usage, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.
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 'Navigate to a URL' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Navigate') and resource ('a URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_type by focusing on URL navigation rather than interaction or input. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., browser_close might be vaguely related to navigation), so it falls short of 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.
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 lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser), context for use (e.g., after browser initialization), or exclusions (e.g., not for navigating within a page). Without such information, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention critical details like whether this requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, what format the screenshot is saved in, or where it's stored. For a tool with potential side effects, this is inadequate.
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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (a screenshot operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the screenshot is taken (e.g., file saved location, return value), leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('filename' and 'fullPage'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining default behaviors or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('take a screenshot') and target ('current page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'browser_snapshot', which might have overlapping functionality, 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.
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 like 'browser_snapshot' or other browser tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open browser page) or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose important traits like whether it simulates human typing speed, handles special keys, validates element existence, or what happens on failure. 'Type text into an element' implies a write operation but lacks details about side effects or error conditions.
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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a browser automation tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between 'element' and 'ref' parameters, what happens after typing, error handling, or how it integrates with other browser tools. The context signals indicate this is part of a browser automation suite, but the description doesn't leverage that context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (element, ref, text) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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 ('type text') and target ('into an element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like browser_click (which interacts with elements differently) or explain its unique role in the browser automation suite.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a page snapshot from browser_snapshot), when typing is appropriate versus clicking, or how it relates to other browser tools in the workflow.
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. 'Close the browser' implies a destructive action, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's reversible, if it requires confirmation, what happens to open tabs, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.
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 (a destructive action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, or return values. For a tool that likely terminates a session, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description is complete for a parameterless tool.
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 'Close the browser' clearly states the action (close) and resource (browser). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_navigate (navigation) and browser_snapshot (capturing). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., browser_take_screenshot is also a termination action), so it's not a perfect 5.
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., browser must be open), consequences (e.g., all tabs closed), or when to avoid it (e.g., if unsaved work exists). With siblings like browser_navigate and browser_snapshot, context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('capture') but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what format the snapshot returns, if it requires specific permissions, or if it has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.
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 output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. However, it lacks details about the output format, behavioral traits, and usage context, which would be helpful for an AI agent. The description meets basic needs but has clear gaps in completeness.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is applied since the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
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 ('capture') and the resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_take_screenshot', but the specific focus on 'accessibility' provides some implicit distinction. A perfect 5 would require 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.
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 like 'browser_take_screenshot' or other browser tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser page) or contextual constraints. The description merely states what it does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-test MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/epi-builder/mcp-test/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/epi-builder/mcp-test)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/epi-builder/mcp-test'

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