Skip to main content
Glama
figranium

Figranium MCP Server

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to Figranium MCP Server

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Agent-native browser control MCP server that enables AI agents to browse and interact with web pages via accessibility tree snapshots and ref ID-based commands.
    15
    2
    MIT
  • F
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    An MCP server that gives Claude direct control of a real browser via Playwright, enabling AI-driven web testing, autonomous test execution, and live failure analysis through natural language.
    8
    7,090 npm
    3
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Skyvern MCP server lets AI agents control a real browser to navigate websites, fill forms, authenticate, and extract structured data. Supports multi-step automation workflows via natural language.
    23,187
    AGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server implementation for Axiom that enables AI agents to query your data using Axiom Processing Language (APL).
    60
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables querying the NFX Signal Investor API to retrieve investor lists, check sizes, and VC firm data, with optional LinkedIn and Crunchbase enrichment.
    -

Related Servers

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 16 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action: task CRUD/execution, schedule management, cabinet listing/creation, and browser session control are clearly separated. The main ambiguity is between schedule_list and schedule_get_all_status, which both surface schedule-related information across all tasks and could be confused by an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a noun_verb pattern (task_update, schedule_delete, browser_open), but several break it with verb_noun names (create_task, create_cabinet, list_cabinets). The mixed conventions are still readable and predictable within each resource group, but the set is not uniformly patterned.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the server's broad scope spanning tasks, schedules, cabinets, browser sessions, and executions. A few schedule status tools could potentially be consolidated, but the overall footprint is reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The task lifecycle is well covered with create, update, delete, list, and execute, and schedule management covers set, delete, describe, list, and status. Minor gaps exist—no individual task detail retrieval, no execution detail endpoint, and no cabinet delete or browser close—but agents can work around these without major failures.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive