browser-mcp

browser_http_get

Fetch web content or API data by sending an HTTP GET request to a URL, with optional headers for authentication or custom requests.

Instructions

HTTP GET url (browser-less). Returns the response body. Optional headers dict for authentication or custom request headers.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "browser_http_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`headers`	No
`timeout`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the request is browser-less and returns the response body. It could go further by noting redirect/error-handling or non-rendering behavior, but for a simple GET tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and key behavioral distinction are front-loaded, and the optional headers purpose is stated efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-complexity tool with only three scalar parameters and no output schema, the description covers the URL, browser-less nature, return value, and header usage. Timeout behavior such as redirects/status handling is not described, but the schema default covers the only remaining parameter and an agent can call this successfully.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add meaning for `headers` ('for authentication or custom request headers'). However, it never mentions the `timeout` parameter, whose meaning is left entirely to its schema name and default value, so the compensation is partial.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'HTTP GET `url`', immediately followed by the qualifier 'browser-less' that separates it from the browser-navigation siblings. It also states the return value, so an agent can distinguish this raw HTTP fetch tool from browser_goto or browser_page_info without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'browser-less' qualifier gives clear context that this tool should be used for direct HTTP requests rather than through the browser automation flow. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but that is not a major gap given the sibling list makes the distinction obvious.

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