Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides browser automation capabilities through Puppeteer, including navigation, screenshots, clicking elements, filling forms, executing JavaScript, and connecting to existing Chrome tabs.

How do I use Puppeteer MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Puppeteer MCP Server open https://example.com and take a screenshot" 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.

Puppeteer MCP Server

by freelw

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

Puppeteer MCP Server

This MCP server provides browser automation capabilities through Puppeteer, allowing interaction with both new browser instances and existing Chrome windows.

Acknowledgment

This project is an experimental implementation inspired by @modelcontextprotocol/server-puppeteer. While it shares similar goals and concepts, it explores alternative approaches to browser automation through the Model Context Protocol.

Related MCP server: Chrome DevTools MCP

Features

Navigate web pages
Take screenshots
Click elements
Fill forms
Select options
Hover elements
Execute JavaScript
Smart Chrome tab management:
- Connect to active Chrome tabs
- Preserve existing Chrome instances
- Intelligent connection handling

Project Structure

/
├── src/
│   ├── config/        # Configuration modules
│   ├── tools/         # Tool definitions and handlers
│   ├── browser/       # Browser connection management
│   ├── types/         # TypeScript type definitions
│   ├── resources/     # Resource handlers
│   └── server.ts      # Server initialization
├── index.ts          # Entry point
└── README.md        # Documentation

Installation

Option 1: Install from npm

npm install -g puppeteer-mcp-server

You can also run it directly without installation using npx:

npx puppeteer-mcp-server

Option 2: Install from source

Clone this repository or download the source code
Install dependencies:

npm install

Build the project:

npm run build

Run the server:

npm start

MCP Server Configuration

To use this tool with Claude, you need to add it to your MCP settings configuration file.

For Claude Desktop App

Add the following to your Claude Desktop configuration file (located at %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json on Windows or ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS):

If installed globally via npm:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "puppeteer-mcp-server",
      "args": [],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

Using npx (without installation):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "puppeteer-mcp-server"],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

If installed from source:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/puppeteer-mcp-server/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "NODE_OPTIONS": "--experimental-modules"
      }
    }
  }
}

For Claude VSCode Extension

Add the following to your Claude VSCode extension MCP settings file (located at %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\saoudrizwan.claude-dev\settings\cline_mcp_settings.json on Windows or ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json on macOS):

If installed globally via npm:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "puppeteer-mcp-server",
      "args": [],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

Using npx (without installation):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "puppeteer-mcp-server"],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

If installed from source:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "puppeteer": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/puppeteer-mcp-server/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "NODE_OPTIONS": "--experimental-modules"
      }
    }
  }
}

For source installation, replace path/to/puppeteer-mcp-server with the actual path to where you installed this tool.

Usage

Standard Mode

The server will launch a new browser instance by default.

Active Tab Mode

To connect to an existing Chrome window:

Close any existing Chrome instances completely

Launch Chrome with remote debugging enabled:

# Windows
"C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --remote-debugging-port=9222

# macOS
/Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome --remote-debugging-port=9222

# Linux
google-chrome --remote-debugging-port=9222

Navigate to your desired webpage in Chrome

Connect using the puppeteer_connect_active_tab tool:

{
  "targetUrl": "https://example.com", // Optional: specific tab URL
  "debugPort": 9222 // Optional: defaults to 9222
}

The server will:

Detect and connect to the Chrome instance running with remote debugging enabled
Preserve your Chrome instance (won't close it)
Find and connect to non-extension tabs
Provide clear error messages if connection fails

Available Tools

puppeteer_connect_active_tab

Connect to an existing Chrome instance with remote debugging enabled.

Optional:
- targetUrl - URL of the specific tab to connect to
- debugPort - Chrome debugging port (default: 9222)

puppeteer_navigate

Navigate to a URL.

Required: url - The URL to navigate to

puppeteer_screenshot

Take a screenshot of the current page or a specific element.

Required: name - Name for the screenshot
Optional:
- selector - CSS selector for element to screenshot
- width - Width in pixels (default: 800)
- height - Height in pixels (default: 600)

puppeteer_click

Click an element on the page.

Required: selector - CSS selector for element to click

puppeteer_fill

Fill out an input field.

Required:
- selector - CSS selector for input field
- value - Text to enter

puppeteer_select

Use dropdown menus.

Required:
- selector - CSS selector for select element
- value - Option value to select

puppeteer_hover

Hover over elements.

Required: selector - CSS selector for element to hover

puppeteer_evaluate

Execute JavaScript in the browser console.

Required: script - JavaScript code to execute

Security Considerations

When using remote debugging:

Only enable on trusted networks
Use a unique debugging port
Close debugging port when not in use
Never expose debugging port to public networks

Logging and Debugging

File-based Logging

The server implements comprehensive logging using Winston:

Location: logs/ directory
File Pattern: mcp-puppeteer-YYYY-MM-DD.log
Log Rotation:
- Daily rotation
- Maximum size: 20MB per file
- Retention: 14 days
- Automatic compression of old logs

Log Levels

DEBUG: Detailed debugging information
INFO: General operational information
WARN: Warning messages
ERROR: Error events and exceptions

Logged Information

Server startup/shutdown events
Browser operations (launch, connect, close)
Navigation attempts and results
Tool executions and outcomes
Error details with stack traces
Browser console output
Resource usage (screenshots, console logs)

Error Handling

The server provides detailed error messages for:

Connection failures
Missing elements
Invalid selectors
JavaScript execution errors
Screenshot failures

Each tool call returns:

Success/failure status
Detailed error message if failed
Operation result data if successful

All errors are also logged to the log files with:

Timestamp
Error message
Stack trace (when available)
Context information

Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Please read our Contributing Guidelines for details on how to submit pull requests, report issues, and contribute to the project.

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

8 tools

puppeteer_clickC

Click an element on the page

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes	CSS selector for element to click

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description is a tautology of the name and adds no behavioral details beyond 'click'. It does not specify side effects (e.g., navigation trigger), waiting behavior, or error conditions. With no annotations, this is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place by providing substantive information beyond the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fails to cover essential context like post-click behavior, return value, or error handling. For a click action, crucial details (e.g., navigation wait) are missing.

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 already describes the selector parameter (CSS selector for element to click). The description adds no further meaning, but schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline. No extra value is provided.

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 ('click') and the target ('an element on the page'), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fill, hover, or navigate, which have different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., puppeteer_hover or puppeteer_fill). It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_connect_active_tabB

Connect to an existing Chrome instance with remote debugging enabled

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`targetUrl`	No	Optional URL of the target tab to connect to. If not provided, connects to the first available tab.
`debugPort`	No	Optional Chrome debugging port (default: 9222)

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose what happens if connection fails, whether state changes, or prerequisites (e.g., Chrome must already be running with remote debugging).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with 10 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief for a connection tool. It lacks information about return values, success/failure indicators, and prerequisites for using the tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and already includes parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional behavioral details beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Connect') and resource ('existing Chrome instance with remote debugging enabled'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform page manipulations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as launching a new browser. It does not indicate it is a prerequisite for other puppeteer actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_evaluateB

Execute JavaScript in the browser console

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`script`	Yes	JavaScript code to execute

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions execution in the browser console but does not specify whether the script runs synchronously, how return values are handled, or potential side effects on the page state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The description is minimal given the tool's potential complexity. It does not explain what the execution returns, how to handle asynchronous code, or any security considerations. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 single parameter 'script' has a clear description in the schema ('JavaScript code to execute'), and the tool description adds no extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Execute') and the target ('JavaScript in the browser console'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific UI interactions like clicking, filling, or navigating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as puppeteer_click or puppeteer_fill. The description lacks context about typical use cases for executing arbitrary JavaScript.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_fillC

Fill out an input field

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes	CSS selector for input field
`value`	Yes	Value to fill

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the field is cleared before filling, whether events are triggered, or what happens if the selector is invalid. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide any 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. However, it could be slightly improved by adding more context without losing brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool (fill input field), the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of output schema and behavioral details (e.g., does it clear existing values?) leaves gaps for the agent.

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%, with both 'selector' and 'value' having descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description states 'Fill out an input field' which clearly identifies the action (fill) and resource (input field). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like puppeteer_select or puppeteer_click, which could also interact with input fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like puppeteer_select or puppeteer_click. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_hoverC

Hover an element on the page

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes	CSS selector for element to hover

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavior like asynchronous execution, event side effects, or whether the hover is a one-time action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, but could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description omits important context like return behavior (likely void) or side effects (e.g., triggering event listeners). Not complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (selector described), so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the action.

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 states the specific verb 'Hover' and resource 'an element on the page', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like click, fill, or navigate. However, it lacks nuance about what 'hover' entails, such as triggering mouseover events.

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 puppeteer_click for interactions or puppeteer_evaluate for custom actions. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_navigateB

Navigate to a URL

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool waits for page load, handles errors, or returns navigation status. For a navigation action, these details are important.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, timeout behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., an active page).

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 description implies that the 'url' parameter is the target URL for navigation, adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., format, allowed protocols) would be beneficial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Navigate to a URL' clearly states the action (navigate) and the resource (URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like puppeteer_screenshot or puppeteer_click, which perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as puppeteer_connect_active_tab. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_screenshotB

Take a screenshot of the current page or a specific element

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the screenshot
`selector`	No	CSS selector for element to screenshot
`width`	No	Width in pixels (default: 800)
`height`	No	Height in pixels (default: 600)

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose what happens to the screenshot (e.g., saved to disk, returned as base64), nor any side effects or permissions needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks essential context such as output format or usage details. It is under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what happens with the screenshot. It fails to mention return value or storage, making it incomplete.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool takes a screenshot of the current page or a specific element, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like puppeteer_navigate or puppeteer_click.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of when to capture a full page versus an element.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

puppeteer_selectC

Select an element on the page with Select tag

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes	CSS selector for element to select
`value`	Yes	Value to select

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended action but does not mention side effects (e.g., page state change), error conditions, or if it waits for the element.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity; slightly more detail would be beneficial without losing conciseness.

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?

For a simple tool with well-described parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain change events, support for multiple select, or error handling, which would be useful for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds the context that it works with a 'Select tag', which clarifies the element type beyond the schema, but this is minimal additional value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Select an element on the page with Select tag', which identifies the target element type (select tag) and action, but it is vague about selecting an option from a dropdown. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like puppeteer_click or puppeteer_fill.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., puppeteer_click for generic clicks, puppeteer_fill for input fields). There is no mention of use cases or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

8 tool updatesv0.7.2May 29, 2026
- First observedpuppeteer_click
- First observedpuppeteer_connect_active_tab
- First observedpuppeteer_evaluate
- First observedpuppeteer_fill
- First observedpuppeteer_hover
- First observedpuppeteer_navigate
- First observedpuppeteer_screenshot
- First observedpuppeteer_select

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Scored 2026-05-29 22:44 across 8 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: clicking, filling, hovering, navigating, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality, so an agent can clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'puppeteer_<action>' naming pattern, with verbs like click, fill, hover, navigate, etc. This predictable pattern aids agent selection.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools covering essential browser automation actions (navigate, click, fill, screenshot, etc.), the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers common actions but lacks some operations like getting current URL/title, waiting for elements, or handling popups. These are minor gaps for basic automation.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Browser Automation Agent by Nova (CIVAI)C
co.civai.nova
I do everything related to Browser Automation & Management
Browser Automation Agent Orchestration
41
browserbasehq-mcp-browserbaseOAuth
ai.smithery
Provides cloud browser automation capabilities using Stagehand and Browserbase, enabling LLMs to i…
Browser Automation Web Scraping Agent Orchestration
23,412
WebRun Browser Automation A
ai.webrun
Run multi-step tasks in a real Chrome browser: persistent environments, live view, human takeover.
Browser Automation Web Scraping
211
agent-web-actions
com.trycloudflare.clients-involving-billion-headers
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
Browser Automation Web Scraping
2

Related MCP Servers

Puppeteer MCP Server
Browser Automation Web Scraping
merajmehrabi
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
Enables browser automation with Puppeteer, supporting navigation, form interactions, and connection to active Chrome instances for comprehensive web page interaction.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-14 00:12 UTC)
8
1,833 npm
484
MIT
Chrome DevTools MCP
Browser Automation Web Scraping Testing & QA Tools
ctrlShiftBryan
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI coding assistants to control and inspect a live Chrome browser through DevTools for automated testing, performance analysis, debugging, and web scraping. Provides reliable browser automation using Puppeteer with comprehensive DevTools access.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-21 01:07 UTC)
1,026,016 npm
3
Apache 2.0
Puppeteer Swarm MCP
Browser Automation Web Scraping
greatSumini
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables browser automation with concurrent tab pool management using Puppeteer. Supports navigation, content extraction, screenshots, element interaction, and JavaScript execution across multiple browser tabs with auto-recovery and idle timeout features.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-29 17:03 UTC)
11
7 npm
1
MIT
Chrome DevTools MCP
Browser Automation Web Scraping Testing & QA Tools
khawjaahmad
-
license
Not graded
quality
Not graded
maintenance
Enables AI coding assistants to control and inspect a live Chrome browser for automated debugging, performance analysis, and web interaction. It leverages Puppeteer and Chrome DevTools to provide capabilities like network monitoring, console logging, and automated browser actions.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-01-25 01:01 UTC)
-