This server gives an MCP agent tools to manage real-browser website sessions without the agent ever seeing your password.
sign_in: Opens a real browser profile at a URL under a durable session name so you can log in yourself.
complete_sign_in: After you confirm login, saves the session and closes the login window.
browse: Reads a page using a named session; omitting URL reuses the sign-in URL and can detect when login is required again.
list_sessions: Lists saved website sessions and shows whether a login window is currently open.
revoke: Deletes a named session and its local browser profile.
Runs as a local daemon, reuses your existing Chromium-based browser profile, and keeps cookies on your machine only.
Allows reuse of an existing Arc browser profile for passwordless sign-in and session-based browsing.
Allows reuse of an existing Brave browser profile for passwordless sign-in and session-based browsing.
Allows reuse of an existing Opera browser profile for passwordless sign-in and session-based browsing.
Allows reuse of an existing Vivaldi browser profile for passwordless sign-in and session-based browsing.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@session-broker Sign into https://example.com and show the dashboard"
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.
MCP tools so an agent can sign into a website without seeing your password.
You stay in the browser you already use. We open that app with your existing profile (cookies and all) so a fresh Chromium does not force a new login. Tools: sign_in, complete_sign_in, browse, list_sessions, revoke.
Local only. Not a cloud vault.
Needs Node (for npx). Nothing else — the first run installs its Python runtime by itself.
Add to ~/.cursor/mcp.json (merge with your existing servers):
{
"mcpServers": {
"session-broker": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "github:om-divyatej/session-broker"]
}
}
}Reload MCP / restart Cursor. You should see sign_in, complete_sign_in, browse.
claude mcp add session-broker -- npx -y github:om-divyatej/session-brokerFirst launch takes a minute: it installs uv (a Python runner) if you don't have it, then fetches the server. After that it's instant.
Related MCP server: browser-auth-mcp
Ask the agent:
Use session-broker. Sign into https://example.com/login as session
demo, then tell me what you see.
Quit the browser if it is already running (one process per profile).
We pick the Chromium-based browser you actually use (freshest cookies: Chrome, Brave, Arc, Edge, Vivaldi, Opera, …) and open that profile — you should already be logged in.
Only sign in if that site still asks. Do not paste the password in chat.
Tell the agent you are signed in.
It calls complete_sign_in, then browse. Leave that window alone while the agent works.
Safari (and Firefox) are not in this path — Playwright cannot reuse Safari's profile. If Safari is your only browser, install Chrome/Brave/Edge or set SESSION_BROKER_ISOLATED=1 (empty profile, you log in once).
Force a browser with SESSION_BROKER_BROWSER=chrome|brave|arc|msedge|…. Isolated empty profiles: SESSION_BROKER_ISOLATED=1. Attach to a browser started with remote debugging: SESSION_BROKER_CDP=http://127.0.0.1:9222.
Daemon on 127.0.0.1:19876 owns Playwright and named profiles.
MCP stdio is a thin client. If the daemon is down, it starts one.
mcp is the default command. We open whatever Chromium browser you already live in; we only download Playwright Chromium if none is installed. Sessions live in ~/.session-broker/. Delete a site with revoke, or rm that folder.
Skip Node and run the Python entry point directly:
{
"mcpServers": {
"session-broker": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "git+https://github.com/om-divyatej/session-broker", "session-broker"]
}
}
}CLI checks:
npx -y github:om-divyatej/session-broker status
npx -y github:om-divyatej/session-broker serveThis is session-sharing with your consent. Sites that bind logins to device/IP (Google, banks, some shops) may reject the headless replay. Device-bound cookies cannot be copied off the machine by design.
Read a page using a named session. Omit url to reuse the sign_in url.
If the result is LOGIN_REQUIRED, call sign_in, wait, complete_sign_in, retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the login-required failure mode and the recovery sequence, and it makes the default URL behavior explicit. It does not discuss potential side effects or error cases beyond LOGIN_REQUIRED, but 'Read a page' plus the retry protocol covers the most important 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The login-required retry instruction is a useful protocol placed after the main usage rule, with no extraneous filler.
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?
The description covers the main call pattern, URL reuse behavior, and the login-required retry flow, which is enough given the small parameter set and existing output schema. It could mention that valid session names come from list_sessions, but the sibling list and the phrase 'named session' make this reasonably inferable.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the url parameter by explaining that omitting it reuses the sign_in url, and it associates the required name parameter with a named session. It could more explicitly define name as a session identifier created by sign_in, but the meaning is recoverable from context.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a page using a named session.' This clearly distinguishes browse from sibling tools like sign_in, complete_sign_in, revoke, and list_sessions, which are concerned with session lifecycle rather than content retrieval.
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 gives explicit operational guidance: 'Omit url to reuse the sign_in url' and provides a concrete conditional workflow when the result is LOGIN_REQUIRED: 'call sign_in, wait, complete_sign_in, retry.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to react without leaving it to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Call after the user says they finished logging in. Saves the session (cookies stay in a local browser profile) and closes the login window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the action is stateful, persists cookies in a local browser profile, and closes the login window. It does not mention reversibility or permission needs, but the main side effects are stated.
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?
Two tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds useful behavioral or contextual information.
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?
The description explains when and what happens, but it omits the meaning of the only required parameter and any prerequisite about an active sign-in flow/window. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.
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 input schema contains a required 'name' property with 0% documentation coverage, and the description never explains what 'name' means or how to determine its value. The agent cannot confidently fill this sole required parameter.
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 states a specific trigger condition ('after the user says they finished logging in') and concrete outcomes ('saves the session ... and closes the login window'). This clearly distinguishes complete_sign_in from siblings like sign_in (starting login) and revoke (ending sessions).
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?
It explicitly says when to call the tool: after the user announces they are done logging in. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing and flow relative to sign_in are clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List saved website sessions and whether a login window is open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List... sessions' implies a read-only operation, and 'whether a login window is open' adds useful behavioral context. But it does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects or describe any state changes, which matters given no annotation safety hints.
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 sentence that starts with the verb 'List' and communicates the core behavior immediately. There is no filler or redundant information.
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?
A tool with zero parameters and an output schema does not need extensive description. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools, but the simple nature and existing output schema make the description sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List saved website sessions' and adds a distinguishing detail, 'whether a login window is open.' It clearly differentiates this read-only listing tool from the action-oriented siblings like sign_in, revoke, and browse.
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 implies its usage: use it to view saved sessions and login-window state. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings, mention prerequisites, or give context such as checking sessions before signing in.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a named session and its local browser profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive action (delete) and an important side effect: the local browser profile is also removed. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a concrete understanding of consequences.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'Delete' states the action, and 'named session and its local browser profile' states the exact 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?
For a one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted and the side effect on the local profile. The presence of an output schema handles return-value expectations. It could mention irreversibility or how to obtain a valid name, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. The phrase 'a named session' makes clear that 'name' refers to the session identifier to be deleted, which is the essential semantic. A reference to list_sessions as a source of valid names would have made it more explicit, but the meaning is still unambiguous.
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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and names the exact resource: a named session and its local browser profile. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse, list_sessions, sign_in, and complete_sign_in, which serve different purposes.
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 implies usage for deleting/revoking a session, which is inferable from the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as sign_in or list_sessions, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Open a real browser so the user can log into a website.
The agent never sees the password. name is a durable session id
(e.g. "western-digital"). After the user finishes logging in, you MUST
call complete_sign_in before browsing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a real browser opens, the agent never sees the password, and a mandatory completion step is required. These are critical behavioral traits an agent would not otherwise know.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded, followed by necessary caveats about password privacy and the mandatory complete_sign_in step. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The description covers the essential behavior, security boundary, session naming, and mandatory follow-up. It doesn't mention error cases or what the output represents, but an output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `name` as a durable session id with an example, but `url` is only indirectly implied by 'log into a website.' The description partially compensates but not fully for both parameters.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it opens a real browser for the user to log into a website. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like browse and complete_sign_in by framing login as a user-driven interactive step.
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 gives strong sequencing guidance: after login, the agent MUST call complete_sign_in before browsing. It also explains that `name` is a durable session id. It doesn't explicitly state when sign_in is preferred over browse, but the login-flow context makes this reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a distinct role in the session lifecycle: browsing, listing, deleting, starting login, and completing login. The two-phase sign_in/complete_sign_in flow is clearly separated and not ambiguous.
Most tools follow a clear imperative verb_noun or phrasal-verb pattern like list_sessions, complete_sign_in, and sign_in. Browse and revoke are less descriptive but still readable and not confusing.
Five tools is well-scoped for a session-broker service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: create a session (sign_in/complete_sign_in), use it (browse), inspect it (list_sessions), and destroy it (revoke). No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Run multi-step tasks in a real Chrome browser: persistent environments, live view, human takeover.
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
Browser MCP for logged-in tasks. Uses your Chrome — credentials stay local. Zero-token replay.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/om-divyatej/session-broker'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
