How do I use browser-for-claude?

1. Click on "Install 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., "@browser-for-claude go to example.com and read the main heading" 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.

browser-for-claude

by lldartsll

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

An MCP server that gives Claude control of a real, headed Chromium browser via Playwright. It exposes a small set of tools — navigate, click, type, read text, screenshot, run JS, get URL, close — so Claude can drive a live browser session instead of just reading static content.

Features

Isolated from your real browser — Claude never touches your everyday Chrome. See Privacy & Isolation below.
Headed Chromium — the browser window is visible, not run in the background, so you can watch what Claude does in real time.
Persistent session — the same browser/page stays open across tool calls until explicitly closed, so multi-step flows (navigate → click → type → screenshot) act on one continuous session.
Minimal surface — eight tools, each a thin wrapper over one Playwright action.

Related MCP server: Browser AI MCP Server

Privacy & Isolation

This is not your everyday Chrome — it's a completely separate, throwaway browser instance:

Different binary. Playwright launches its own bundled Chromium (installed via npx playwright install chromium), not the Chrome app on your machine.
No shared profile. Each session starts from browser.newContext() — a brand-new, blank browsing context. It does not read your Chrome profile directory, so there's no access to your bookmarks, saved passwords, browsing history, extensions, or cookies.
No Google account. Because the context starts blank, any site you're logged into in your real browser (Google, GitHub, etc.) shows up logged out here — Claude has no way to see or use your existing sessions.
Nothing persists across restarts. browser_close (or the process exiting) discards the context entirely; nothing is written back to disk for next time.

In short: Claude can look at and click around a real, live web page, but it's working in its own sandboxed browser with a clean slate — never your personal one.

Tools

Tool	Description
`browser_navigate`	Navigate the headed Chromium window to a URL
`browser_click`	Click an element matching a CSS selector
`browser_type`	Fill a text input matching a CSS selector
`browser_get_text`	Read the text content of an element matching a CSS selector
`browser_screenshot`	Capture a PNG screenshot of the current page
`browser_evaluate`	Evaluate a JavaScript expression in the page context and return the result
`browser_get_url`	Return the current page URL
`browser_close`	Close the Chromium window and end the session

Requirements

Node.js 20+
npm

Setup

npm install
npx playwright install chromium
npm run build

Usage

Standalone

npm start

This starts the MCP server on stdio (dist/server.js). It's meant to be launched by an MCP client, not run interactively on its own.

With Claude Code

Add it as an MCP server, e.g. via a .mcp.json in your project:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "browser-for-claude": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["dist/server.js"]
    }
  }
}

Claude Code will then discover the browser_* tools automatically.

Development

npm run build       # compile TypeScript (src -> dist)
npm run smoke-test   # launch a real browser and exercise every tool against example.com

The smoke test (test/smoke-test.ts) is an end-to-end check: it navigates to a real page, reads text, evaluates JS, takes a screenshot, and confirms that clicking a missing selector throws — all against a live Chromium instance rather than mocks.

Project structure

src/
  server.ts             MCP server: registers the browser_* tools
  browserController.ts  Playwright session management (launch/navigate/click/type/...)
test/
  smoke-test.ts         End-to-end smoke test against example.com

How it works

browserController.ts lazily launches a single headed Chromium browser, context, and page on first use, and keeps reusing them across tool calls until browser_close is called. A launch guard (launchInFlight) ensures concurrent tool calls can't race into launching two separate browser instances.

Caveats

Only one browser session is supported at a time (no multi-tab/multi-context support).
The isolation described above (see Privacy & Isolation) cuts both ways: if a task genuinely needs an already-logged-in site, you'll need to log in manually within the session first — there's no way to reuse credentials from your regular browser.
Intended for local/trusted use — browser_evaluate runs arbitrary JavaScript in the page with no sandboxing beyond what the browser itself provides.

License

No license specified.

Available Tools

8 tools

browser_clickClick elementC

Click an element matching a CSS selector

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes
`timeoutMs`	No

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Click an element' but does not disclose whether it waits for the element, scrolls, handles multiple matches, throws on missing elements, or what the return value is. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could expand with 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about waiting, failure modes, scroll behavior, and return value, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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. It only explains 'selector' implicitly via 'CSS selector', but 'timeoutMs' is entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Click') and the resource ('an element matching a CSS selector'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_navigate, browser_type, or browser_get_text. The verb and target are specific.

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, prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), or situations where clicking is inappropriate. The description offers no context for choosing this tool.

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

browser_closeClose browserA

Close the Chromium window and end the session

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the core behavior (closing the Chromium window and ending the session) but does not add context about side effects like unsaved data loss or process termination. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is adequate but not rich in detail.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple close operation with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states the action and the object, and there is no missing information required for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides no additional parameter information needed.

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's action ('Close the Chromium window and end the session') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, which perform navigation, clicks, typing, screenshots, text extraction, URL retrieval, and evaluation, all of which are different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is used when the agent needs to close the browser, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since the sibling tools are all other browser actions, the usage context is clear but not formally guided.

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

browser_evaluateEvaluate JSB

Evaluate a JavaScript expression in the page context and return the result

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`script`	Yes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that evaluating arbitrary JavaScript could have side effects (e.g., modifying the DOM), whether the execution is synchronous or asynchronous, or what happens if the script throws an error. The return format is also unspecified.

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 with front-loaded action and object. It contains no wasted words or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple in terms of schema (one required string param) and there is no output schema. However, the description leaves out relevant behavioral context like side effects, return value details, and error behavior. For a browser evaluation tool, these are important gaps, making the description minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 adds the meaning of the 'script' parameter as a JavaScript expression, which is a small clarification beyond the bare schema type. However, it does not explain details like whether the expression must return a value, how complex scripts are handled, or if the parameter accepts statements vs. only expressions. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is adequate but limited.

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 ('Evaluate') with a specific resource ('a JavaScript expression in the page context') and the outcome ('return the result'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate.

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 vs. alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does without mentioning exclusions or recommending other browser tools for specific scenarios. The agent gets no context for choosing this over, say, browser_get_text.

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

browser_get_textGet element textA

Read the text content of an element matching a CSS selector

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description conveys a non-mutating read operation but omits details such as return format, selector matching rules (first vs all), and handling of hidden elements. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Single sentence with precise language, no redundancy, and front-loads the action 'Read'.

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, the description is adequate but does not explicitly state the return value or behavior for multiple matches, which is important given no output schema. Minor gaps remain.

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?

Only parameter 'selector' is described as a CSS selector in the description, adding meaning beyond the schema property name. However, no examples or selector syntax details are provided.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'text content of an element' with a CSS selector qualifier, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_screenshot.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving text but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over browser_evaluate or limitations like first-match behavior. Context from siblings exists but is not leveraged.

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

browser_get_urlGet current URLA

Return the current page URL

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Return the current page URL' without mentioning that it is read-only, what happens if no page is loaded, or that it doesn't affect browser state. This is essentially a restatement of the title with no added 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, minimal sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It omits potential error behavior and return format, but given the tool's simplicity, it remains reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters; the description correctly implies no arguments are required.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Return' with resource 'current page URL', clearly identifying the tool's function. This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_navigate (which changes the URL) and browser_get_text (which retrieves text content).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is used when the current URL is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. With sibling tools like browser_navigate, the contrast is implicit but not stated.

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

browser_navigateNavigate browserB

Navigate the headed Chromium window 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic navigation action. It does not mention whether navigation waits for page load, how invalid URLs are handled, or that it replaces the current page state, leaving the agent without critical 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action ('Navigate') and is immediately understandable, earning a perfect score for 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 navigation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details about return values or whether navigation is synchronous (e.g., waits for page load), which leaves some ambiguity for the agent and prevents a higher score.

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 mentions 'to a URL', which maps to the required 'url' parameter, but does not add specific constraints beyond the schema's format:uri. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by confirming the parameter's purpose, but it could be more explicit about expected URL formats or protocols.

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 ('Navigate'), the target ('the headed Chromium window'), and the destination ('to a URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_screenshot or browser_get_text, which perform different operations.

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 such as browser_get_url (which retrieves the current URL) or browser_evaluate. It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

browser_screenshotScreenshotA

Capture a PNG screenshot of the current page

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is a PNG but does not specify whether it captures the full page or just the viewport, whether it waits for page load, or how the image data is returned. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Capture') and immediately states the output format and scope, making it easy to parse.

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 parameterless tool, the description covers the core action, but with no output schema or annotations, it should clarify more about the return format or any side effects. The missing details about what happens after capture (e.g., how the PNG is delivered) leave some incompleteness.

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 accepts zero parameters (schema coverage 100% vacuously), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description has no parameter information to add, and no ambiguity exists.

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's function with a specific verb ('Capture'), the resource ('PNG screenshot'), and the scope ('current page'). This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_navigate or browser_click, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when a visual capture of the current page is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since no sibling overlaps with this functionality, the context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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

browser_typeType textC

Fill a text input matching a CSS selector

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`selector`	Yes

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 the full burden. It only says 'Fill a text input,' which implies a mutation but doesn't disclose whether existing text is cleared, whether events are triggered, or whether element visibility is required.

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 no wasted words, making it concise. However, it could be slightly expanded with behavioral caveats without losing efficiency.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation action, the description lacks important behavioral context such as clearing behavior, event triggering, and error conditions. It is a minimal description of a simple tool but not complete enough for safe automatic invocation.

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 schema has no descriptions, so the description is the only source of semantics. It clarifies that 'selector' is a CSS selector and 'text' is the fill value, but it doesn't detail any formatting or special behavior. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% 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 ('Fill') and target ('text input'), with the selector-based targeting. This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_click and browser_get_text, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The description simply states what it does without situational context.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

8 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026
- First observedbrowser_click
- First observedbrowser_close
- First observedbrowser_evaluate
- First observedbrowser_get_text
- First observedbrowser_get_url
- First observedbrowser_navigate
- First observedbrowser_screenshot
- First observedbrowser_type

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: navigating, clicking, typing, reading text, evaluating JS, taking screenshots, getting the URL, and closing the browser. There is no ambiguity or overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools share the 'browser_' prefix and follow a consistent verb-based pattern (navigate, click, type, get_text, evaluate, get_url, close). 'browser_screenshot' is the only deviation but still reads as an action.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the set is appropriately scoped for browser automation, covering session management, navigation, interaction, inspection, and evaluation. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The set covers core browser workflows, but lacks explicit back/forward/refresh or wait commands. However, browser_evaluate can compensate for these missing operations, making gaps minor.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

browserbasehq-mcp-browserbaseOAuth
ai.smithery
Provides cloud browser automation capabilities using Stagehand and Browserbase, enabling LLMs to i…
Browser Automation Web Scraping Agent Orchestration
23,406
playwright-mcp-server A
com.thenextgennexus
Headless browser primitives for AI agents when sites need real JS rendering.
Browser Automation Web Scraping
175
Skyvern
io.github.Skyvern-AI
AI-powered browser automation — navigate, click, fill forms, and extract data from any website.
Browser Automation Web Scraping App Automation
222,930
agent-web-actions
com.trycloudflare.plates-spread-materials-optimum
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
Browser Automation Agent Orchestration
2

Related MCP Servers

claude-playwright
Browser Automation Web Scraping
smartlabsAT
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables browser automation and web interaction control through Playwright, allowing Claude Code to navigate, click, fill forms, take screenshots, and manage sessions.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-10 06:07 UTC)
158
7
MIT
Browser AI MCP Server
Browser Automation Web Scraping
qckfx
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables natural language browser automation through Claude, wrapping Playwright to execute commands like navigation, clicking, form filling, and screenshots.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-24 22:15 UTC)
20
30
MIT
Claude Chrome MCP
Browser Automation Web Scraping
nonsleepr
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables browser automation through the Claude Chrome Extension, allowing agents to navigate websites, fill forms, take screenshots, and debug web apps via standard MCP protocols.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-01-29 01:56 UTC)
1
MIT
Cloudflare Playwright MCP
Browser Automation Web Scraping
Atlas-Realty-Group
F
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to control a browser through Playwright tools, allowing web automation tasks such as navigation, clicking, typing, and screenshots.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-25 16:42 UTC)
9,320
-

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/lldartsll/browser-for-claude'

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