Servidor MCP para obtener contenido de páginas web mediante el navegador sin interfaz gráfica Playwright.
Compatibilidad con JavaScript : a diferencia de los raspadores web tradicionales, Fetcher MCP utiliza Playwright para ejecutar JavaScript, lo que lo hace capaz de manejar contenido web dinámico y aplicaciones web modernas.
Extracción de contenido inteligente : el algoritmo de legibilidad integrado extrae automáticamente el contenido principal de las páginas web, eliminando anuncios, navegación y otros elementos no esenciales.
Formato de salida flexible : admite formatos de salida HTML y Markdown, lo que facilita la integración con varias aplicaciones posteriores.
Procesamiento paralelo : la herramienta fetch_urls permite la obtención simultánea de múltiples URL, lo que mejora significativamente la eficiencia de las operaciones por lotes.
Optimización de recursos : bloquea automáticamente los recursos innecesarios (imágenes, hojas de estilo, fuentes, medios) para reducir el uso del ancho de banda y mejorar el rendimiento.
Manejo robusto de errores : el manejo y registro de errores integrales garantizan un funcionamiento confiable incluso cuando se trata de páginas web problemáticas.
Parámetros configurables : control detallado de los tiempos de espera, la extracción de contenido y el formato de salida para adaptarse a diferentes casos de uso.
Related MCP server: mcp-playwright-scraper
Ejecutar directamente con npx:
npx -y fetcher-mcpPrimera configuración: instale el navegador requerido ejecutando el siguiente comando en su terminal:
npx playwright install chromiumEjecute con la opción --debug para mostrar la ventana del navegador para depuración:
npx -y fetcher-mcp --debugConfigure este servidor MCP en Claude Desktop:
En MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
En Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"fetcher": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "fetcher-mcp"]
}
}
}fetch_url - Recupera el contenido de una página web desde una URL específica
Utiliza el navegador sin interfaz gráfica Playwright para analizar JavaScript
Admite la extracción inteligente del contenido principal y la conversión a Markdown
Admite los siguientes parámetros:
url : La URL de la página web a obtener (parámetro obligatorio)
timeout : Tiempo de espera de carga de la página en milisegundos, el valor predeterminado es 30000 (30 segundos)
waitUntil : especifica cuándo se considera completa la navegación, opciones: 'load', 'domcontentloaded', 'networkidle', 'commit', el valor predeterminado es 'load'
extractContent : si se debe extraer de forma inteligente el contenido principal, el valor predeterminado es verdadero
maxLength : Longitud máxima del contenido devuelto (en caracteres), el valor predeterminado es sin límite
returnHtml : si se debe devolver contenido HTML en lugar de Markdown, el valor predeterminado es falso
waitForNavigation : si se debe esperar una navegación adicional después de la carga inicial de la página (útil para sitios con verificación anti-bot), el valor predeterminado es falso
navigationTimeout : Tiempo máximo de espera para navegación adicional en milisegundos, el valor predeterminado es 10000 (10 segundos)
disableMedia : si se deben deshabilitar los recursos multimedia (imágenes, hojas de estilo, fuentes, medios), el valor predeterminado es verdadero
debug : si se habilita el modo de depuración (mostrando la ventana del navegador), anula el indicador de línea de comando --debug si se especifica
fetch_urls - Recupera por lotes el contenido de páginas web desde múltiples URL en paralelo
Utiliza la búsqueda paralela de múltiples pestañas para un mejor rendimiento
Devuelve resultados combinados con una clara separación entre páginas web
Admite los siguientes parámetros:
urls : Matriz de URL para obtener (parámetro obligatorio)
Los demás parámetros son los mismos que fetch_url
Espere a que se complete la carga : para sitios web que utilizan CAPTCHA, redirecciones u otros mecanismos de verificación, incluya en su solicitud:
Please wait for the page to fully loadEsto utilizará el parámetro waitForNavigation: true .
Aumentar la duración del tiempo de espera : para sitios web que se cargan lentamente:
Please set the page loading timeout to 60 secondsEsto ajusta los parámetros de timeout y navigationTimeout según corresponda.
Conservar la estructura HTML original : cuando la extracción de contenido puede fallar:
Please preserve the original HTML contentEstablece extractContent: false y returnHtml: true .
Obtener contenido completo de la página : cuando el contenido extraído es demasiado limitado:
Please fetch the complete webpage content instead of just the main contentEstablece extractContent: false .
Devolver contenido como HTML : cuando se necesita el formato HTML en lugar del Markdown predeterminado:
Please return the content in HTML formatEstablece returnHtml: true .
Activación de depuración dinámica : para mostrar la ventana del navegador durante una operación de búsqueda específica:
Please enable debug mode for this fetch operationEsto establece debug: true incluso si el servidor se inició sin el indicador --debug .
Inicio de sesión manual : para iniciar sesión con sus propias credenciales:
Please run in debug mode so I can manually log in to the websiteEstablece debug: true o utiliza el indicador --debug , manteniendo la ventana del navegador abierta para el inicio de sesión manual.
Interactuar con el navegador de depuración : cuando el modo de depuración está habilitado:
La ventana del navegador permanece abierta
Puede iniciar sesión manualmente en el sitio web utilizando sus credenciales
Una vez completado el inicio de sesión, se obtendrá el contenido con su sesión autenticada.
Habilitar la depuración para solicitudes específicas : incluso si el servidor ya está en ejecución, puede habilitar el modo de depuración para una solicitud específica:
Please enable debug mode for this authentication stepEstablece debug: true solo para esta solicitud específica, abriendo la ventana del navegador para inicio de sesión manual.
npm installInstalar los navegadores necesarios para Playwright:
npm run install-browsernpm run buildUtilice MCP Inspector para depurar:
npm run inspectorTambién puedes habilitar el modo de navegador visible para la depuración:
node build/index.js --debugg-search-mcp : Un potente servidor MCP para la búsqueda de Google que permite realizar búsquedas paralelas con múltiples palabras clave simultáneamente. Ideal para búsquedas por lotes y recopilación de datos.
Con licencia MIT
Install Playwright Chromium browser binary. Call this if you get an error about the browser not being installed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| withDeps | No | Install system dependencies required by Chromium browser. Default is false | |
| force | No | Force installation even if Chromium is already installed. Default is false |
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 explains the tool's purpose and trigger condition but doesn't describe what happens during installation (e.g., download size, time, network requirements), potential side effects, or what constitutes successful completion. It provides basic context but lacks richer behavioral details needed for a mutation tool.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated immediately.
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 this is a mutation tool (installation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about when to use it and what it does. However, it doesn't explain what happens after installation completes or what the agent should expect, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool that modifies system state.
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 100%, with both parameters (withDeps, force) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.
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 ('Install Playwright Chromium browser binary') and resource ('Chromium browser binary'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url and fetch_urls which perform different operations. It provides a concrete use case ('if you get an error about the browser not being installed') that makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('if you get an error about the browser not being installed'), providing clear contextual guidance. While it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, the specific error-based trigger makes usage guidelines comprehensive and actionable for the stated purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve web page content from a specified URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to fetch. Make sure to include the schema (http:// or https:// if not defined, preferring https for most cases) | |
| timeout | No | Page loading timeout in milliseconds, default is 30000 (30 seconds) | |
| waitUntil | No | Specifies when navigation is considered complete, options: 'load', 'domcontentloaded', 'networkidle', 'commit', default is 'load' | |
| extractContent | No | Whether to intelligently extract the main content, default is true | |
| maxLength | No | Maximum length of returned content (in characters), default is no limit | |
| returnHtml | No | Whether to return HTML content instead of Markdown, default is false | |
| waitForNavigation | No | Whether to wait for additional navigation after initial page load (useful for sites with anti-bot verification), default is false | |
| navigationTimeout | No | Maximum time to wait for additional navigation in milliseconds, default is 10000 (10 seconds) | |
| disableMedia | No | Whether to disable media resources (images, stylesheets, fonts, media), default is true | |
| debug | No | Whether to enable debug mode (showing browser window), overrides the --debug command line flag if specified |
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 but only states the basic action ('Retrieve web page content'). It doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., network requests, rate limits), authentication needs, error handling, or what the return content looks like (structure or format). This is inadequate for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.
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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, leaving significant gaps that could hinder correct tool selection and invocation 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 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a 'URL' input, which is already covered in the schema. 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('web page content from a specified URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_urls' (plural) or 'browser_install', but the singular 'URL' suggests this is for single-page retrieval versus batch operations.
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 'fetch_urls' or 'browser_install'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve web page content from multiple specified URLs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | Array of URLs to fetch | |
| timeout | No | Page loading timeout in milliseconds, default is 30000 (30 seconds) | |
| waitUntil | No | Specifies when navigation is considered complete, options: 'load', 'domcontentloaded', 'networkidle', 'commit', default is 'load' | |
| extractContent | No | Whether to intelligently extract the main content, default is true | |
| maxLength | No | Maximum length of returned content (in characters), default is no limit | |
| returnHtml | No | Whether to return HTML content instead of Markdown, default is false | |
| waitForNavigation | No | Whether to wait for additional navigation after initial page load (useful for sites with anti-bot verification), default is false | |
| navigationTimeout | No | Maximum time to wait for additional navigation in milliseconds, default is 10000 (10 seconds) | |
| disableMedia | No | Whether to disable media resources (images, stylesheets, fonts, media), default is true | |
| debug | No | Whether to enable debug mode (showing browser window), overrides the --debug command line flag if specified |
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 the tool retrieves content but lacks details on critical behaviors: it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, 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: 'Retrieve web page content from multiple specified URLs.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the action and scope.
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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like how content is returned, error cases, or performance constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially without annotations or output schema to fill gaps.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'urls' are processed or interactions between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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: 'Retrieve web page content from multiple specified URLs.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('web page content'), and scope ('multiple specified URLs'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'fetch_url' (which presumably handles single URLs), missing full differentiation for a top 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 doesn't mention the sibling tool 'fetch_url' or explain scenarios where fetching multiple URLs is preferred over single ones. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or best practices, 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0browser_installfetch_urlfetch_urlsScored across 3 tools
The tools are mostly distinct, with 'fetch_url' and 'fetch_urls' clearly differentiated by single vs. multiple URLs. However, an agent might initially confuse 'fetch_url' and 'fetch_urls' as similar operations, though the descriptions clarify the distinction. 'browser_install' is completely separate in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structure: 'browser_install', 'fetch_url', and 'fetch_urls'. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a web fetching domain, lacking operations like navigation, interaction, or content parsing. While the core fetching is covered, the scope seems limited compared to typical web automation needs.
For a web fetching server, there are significant gaps: no tools for interacting with pages (e.g., clicking, filling forms), extracting specific content, handling JavaScript, or managing sessions. The surface is severely incomplete for common web automation tasks beyond basic URL retrieval.
MCP server (stdio): fetch web pages as clean readable markdown via the AgentForge API
MCP server for Firecrawl — web search, scraping, and biomedical/arXiv paper search.
Turn any public website into an MCP server for agents to search, read and navigate.
MCP server for web extraction and rendering via AceDataCloud WebExtrator