Allows agents to reuse an existing Arc browser profile and its cookies, enabling persistent logged-in sessions and password-free sign-in for websites.
Allows agents to reuse an existing Brave browser profile and its cookies, enabling persistent logged-in sessions and password-free sign-in for websites.
Allows agents to reuse an existing Opera browser profile and its cookies, enabling persistent logged-in sessions and password-free sign-in for websites.
Allows agents to reuse an existing Vivaldi browser profile and its cookies, enabling persistent logged-in sessions and password-free sign-in for websites.
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., "@agent-login Sign into example.com using my browser session and show me my account 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.
Most agent browser tools spin up a blank Playwright profile. Blank means no cookies, so every run dumps you back on a login screen — you re-authenticate, re-do 2FA, re-solve the bot check, every single time. The session dies with the process.
agent-login does the opposite. It finds the Chromium-based browsers you actually have (Chrome, Brave, Arc, Edge, Vivaldi, Opera, …), picks the one with the freshest cookies — i.e. the browser you were just using — and opens that real profile. So:
You're usually already logged in. The sites you have open in your normal browser are open for the agent too. No fresh sign-in.
No credentials anywhere near the model. The password lives in your browser's keychain, not in the chat or the logs.
Sessions persist. Close the chat, come back tomorrow — the profile (and its logins) are still there.
"Freshest cookies" is the whole trick: instead of guessing which browser or making you configure a profile path, it reads the last-modified time on each browser's cookie store and uses the one you're living in. Override any time with AGENT_LOGIN_BROWSER=chrome|brave|arc|msedge.
Related MCP server: OpenBrowser
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": {
"agent-login": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "github:omdivyatej/agent-login"]
}
}
}Reload MCP / restart Cursor. You should see sign_in, complete_sign_in, browse.
claude mcp add agent-login -- npx -y github:omdivyatej/agent-loginFirst 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.
Ask the agent:
Use agent-login. 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 AGENT_LOGIN_ISOLATED=1 (empty profile, you log in once).
Force a browser with AGENT_LOGIN_BROWSER=chrome|brave|arc|msedge|…. Isolated empty profiles: AGENT_LOGIN_ISOLATED=1. Attach to a browser started with remote debugging: AGENT_LOGIN_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 ~/.agent-login/. Delete a site with revoke, or rm that folder.
Skip Node and run the Python entry point directly:
{
"mcpServers": {
"agent-login": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "git+https://github.com/omdivyatej/agent-login", "agent-login"]
}
}
}CLI checks:
npx -y github:omdivyatej/agent-login status
npx -y github:omdivyatej/agent-login 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is session-based, reads a page, can return LOGIN_REQUIRED, and defines a retry flow. It does not mention failure modes for missing sessions, but the read behavior and auth handling are transparent.
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 short paragraphs with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the auth-failure workflow is compressed into a precise instruction sequence.
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 is complete for a simple read tool: it states what it reads, how the session/url interact, and how to recover from LOGIN_REQUIRED. The only minor omission is explicitly pointing to list_sessions or defining where a named session comes from.
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%, but both parameters are addressed in prose: 'named session' defines name, and 'Omit url to reuse the sign_in url' gives meaningful semantics for url beyond its optional/null schema.
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?
Description opens with 'Read a page using a named session,' which names a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. This clearly differentiates browsing from the sibling sign_in/complete_sign_in/list_sessions/revoke 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?
It gives two explicit usage rules: omit url to reuse the sign_in url, and if the result is LOGIN_REQUIRED, call sign_in, wait, complete_sign_in, then retry. This routes the agent to the correct sibling workflow without 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 full burden. It discloses key side effects: saving the session, cookies staying in a local browser profile, and closing the login window. It does not mention error conditions or idempotency, but the main behavior is transparent for a simple completion action.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The most important trigger condition ('Call after the user says they finished logging in') is front-loaded, followed by specific side effects.
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 tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the required 'name' parameter is a meaningful gap, and there is no guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sign_in. Acceptable for a minimal tool but not fully 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?
The required parameter 'name' is completely unexplained in both the description and the schema (0% schema_description_coverage). The agent has no way to know what value to supply. With low schema coverage, the description was obligated to compensate and did not.
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 a specific action with a timing trigger ('after the user says they finished logging in') and concrete outcomes ('Saves the session... closes the login window'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sign_in (which presumably initiates the login) by focusing on the completion 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?
Explicitly says when to use the tool: after the user says they finished logging in. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition provides clear contextual usage guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'List' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description reveals what information the tool reports. It does not discuss auth requirements or rate limits, but these are not obviously critical for a zero-parameter listing 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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and what it returns. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough: it identifies the operation, the resource, and the key output dimension. The agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.
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 the schema trivially covers all parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed. This is the baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('saved website sessions'), and also specifies the output aspect ('whether a login window is open'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like sign_in, browse, and revoke, which are all action-oriented.
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to inspect saved sessions or login-window status, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions naming alternatives. The differentiation from siblings is left to inference.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the destructive scope: the description does not just say 'revoke' — it says the session and its local browser profile will be deleted. It could add detail about irreversibility or impact on other sessions, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.
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 precise sentence with no filler. The action verb and target resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It could not be shortened further without losing key 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?
For a one-parameter destructive tool, the description plus input and output schemas covers the basic operation and result. However, it does not mention where to obtain the session name (such as list_sessions) or provide any caution about the irreversible removal of the local profile, so it is minimally adequate but not fully 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It weakly implies that the session has a name, but it never explicitly states that the required 'name' parameter is the identifier of the session to delete or how to obtain a valid value. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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 ('Delete') and names the exact resource ('a named session and its local browser profile'). It also distinguishes this tool from its siblings: none of sign_in, complete_sign_in, browse, or list_sessions implies deletion, so an agent can clearly see that revoke is the destructive session-removal operation.
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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you want to delete an existing named session and its local profile. However, the description does not explicitly state when this tool should or should not be used, nor does it point to alternatives like list_sessions for finding valid session names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Open the user's real installed browser (Chrome, Brave, Arc, Edge, …) with
their existing profile so they are already logged in. name is just a label.
Chromium locks the profile: if that browser is already running, ask them to
quit it, then retry. After the signed-in page is visible, call complete_sign_in.
Never ask for a password. Safari cannot be driven this way.
| 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 and does so richly: it opens a real browser with the user's existing profile, discloses Chromium's profile-lock behavior, notes Safari cannot be driven, mandates calling complete_sign_in afterward, and prohibits password requests. This goes well beyond a generic 'opens a browser' statement.
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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, label clarification, lock behavior, follow-up, password rule, and Safari limitation. Slightly heavy in the first sentence, but well front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the critical workflow: opening the browser, handling locks, and chaining to complete_sign_in. It lacks explicit handling of user cancellation or error recovery, but the core invocation path is fully described.
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 compensate. It explicitly clarifies that 'name' is just a label, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, 'url' semantics are only implied as the signed-in page to open, not explicitly defined, leaving partial ambiguity.
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 a specific action: 'Open the user's real installed browser' with their existing profile so they are already logged in. It distinguishes itself from the sibling complete_sign_in by explicitly calling out the follow-up step, and the core purpose is unmistakable.
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 clear operating context: call complete_sign_in after the signed-in page is visible, retry if the browser is running, and never ask for a password. It lacks an explicit when-to-use vs alternatives comparison with siblings like browse or list_sessions, but the workflow guidance is strong.
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 clearly distinct purpose: starting a login flow, completing it, browsing with a session, listing sessions, and revoking them. The sign_in/complete_sign_in pair is sequential rather than overlapping, and their descriptions make the boundary explicit.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case imperative verbs, and the naming pattern is consistent: sign_in, complete_sign_in, browse, list_sessions, revoke. The verb-first style is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is an appropriate size for a login/session management server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers the full session lifecycle: create a session, complete login, use the session, list sessions, and revoke sessions. It also handles the LOGIN_REQUIRED retry flow, so there are no obvious dead ends.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
AI-powered web automation. Navigate websites using AI agents for one page or a thousand
AI-powered web automation. Navigate websites using AI agents for one page or a thousand
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/omdivyatej/agent-login'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
