Prysm MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버는 Claude와 다른 AI 도우미가 높은 정확도와 유연성을 갖추고 웹 콘텐츠를 스크래핑할 수 있도록 해줍니다.
🎯 다중 스크래핑 모드 : 집중(속도), 균형(기본), 심층(철저) 모드 중에서 선택하세요
🧠 콘텐츠 분석 : URL을 분석하여 최상의 스크래핑 접근 방식을 결정합니다.
📄 형식 유연성 : 결과를 마크다운, HTML 또는 JSON으로 형식화합니다.
🖼️ 이미지 지원 : 선택적으로 이미지를 추출하고 다운로드할 수 있습니다.
🔍 스마트 스크롤링 : 단일 페이지 애플리케이션에 대한 스크롤 동작 구성
📱 반응형 : 다양한 웹사이트 레이아웃과 구조에 적응합니다.
💾 파일 출력 : 원하는 디렉토리에 서식이 지정된 결과를 저장합니다.
Related MCP server: MCP Web Tools Server
지엑스피1
우리는 인기 있는 MCP 호환 애플리케이션에 대한 자세한 통합 가이드를 제공합니다:
Prysm MCP 서버를 설정하는 방법은 여러 가지가 있습니다.
위의 가이드에 따라 적절한 위치에 mcp.json 파일을 만듭니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"prysm-scraper": {
"description": "Prysm web scraper with custom output directories",
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@pinkpixel/prysm-mcp"
],
"env": {
"PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR": "${workspaceFolder}/scrape_results",
"PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR": "${workspaceFolder}/scrape_results/images"
}
}
}
}서버는 다음과 같은 도구를 제공합니다.
scrapeFocused속도에 최적화된 빠른 웹 스크래핑(스크롤 감소, 주요 콘텐츠만 제공).
Please scrape https://example.com using the focused mode사용 가능한 매개변수:
url (필수): 스크래핑할 URL
maxScrolls (선택 사항): 스크롤 시도의 최대 횟수(기본값: 5)
scrollDelay (선택 사항): 스크롤 간 지연 시간(ms)(기본값: 1000)
scrapeImages (선택 사항): 결과에 이미지를 포함할지 여부
downloadImages (선택 사항): 이미지를 로컬로 다운로드할지 여부
maxImages (선택 사항): 추출할 최대 이미지 수
output (선택 사항): 다운로드한 이미지의 출력 디렉토리
scrapeBalanced적절한 속도와 좋은 커버리지를 갖춘 균형 잡힌 웹 스크래핑 방식입니다.
Please scrape https://example.com using the balanced mode사용 가능한 매개변수:
scrapeFocused 와 동일하며 다른 기본값을 사용합니다.
maxScrolls 기본값: 10
scrollDelay 기본값: 2000
총 스크래핑 시간을 제한하기 위해 timeout 매개변수를 추가합니다(기본값: 30000ms)
scrapeDeep최대 추출 웹 스크래핑(느리지만 철저함).
Please scrape https://example.com using the deep mode with maximum scrolls사용 가능한 매개변수:
scrapeFocused 와 동일하며 다른 기본값을 사용합니다.
maxScrolls 기본값: 20
scrollDelay 기본값: 3000
maxImages 기본값: 100
formatResult스크래핑한 데이터를 다양한 구조화된 형식(마크다운, HTML, JSON)으로 포맷합니다.
Format the scraped data as markdown사용 가능한 매개변수:
data (필수): 포맷할 스크래핑된 데이터
format (필수): 출력 형식 - "markdown", "html" 또는 "json"
includeImages (선택 사항): 출력에 이미지를 포함할지 여부(기본값: true)
output (선택 사항): 포맷된 결과를 저장할 파일 경로
출력 경로를 지정하여 서식이 지정된 결과를 파일에 저장할 수도 있습니다.
Format the scraped data as markdown and save it to "my-results/output.md"기본적으로 서식이 적용된 결과를 저장할 때 파일은 ~/prysm-mcp/output/ 에 저장됩니다. 다음 두 가지 방법으로 이 설정을 사용자 지정할 수 있습니다.
환경 변수 : 원하는 디렉토리에 환경 변수를 설정합니다.
# Linux/macOS
export PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR="/path/to/custom/directory"
export PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR="/path/to/custom/image/directory"
# Windows (Command Prompt)
set PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR=C:\path\to\custom\directory
set PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR=C:\path\to\custom\image\directory
# Windows (PowerShell)
$env:PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR="C:\path\to\custom\directory"
$env:PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR="C:\path\to\custom\image\directory"도구 매개변수 : 도구를 호출할 때 출력 경로를 직접 지정합니다.
# For general results
Format the scraped data as markdown and save it to "/absolute/path/to/file.md"
# For image downloads when scraping
Please scrape https://example.com and download images to "/absolute/path/to/images"MCP 구성 : MCP 구성 파일(예: .cursor/mcp.json )에서 다음 환경 변수를 설정할 수 있습니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"prysm-scraper": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@pinkpixel/prysm-mcp"],
"env": {
"PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR": "${workspaceFolder}/scrape_results",
"PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR": "${workspaceFolder}/scrape_results/images"
}
}
}
}PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR 지정되지 않으면 PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR 내부의 images 라는 하위 폴더로 기본 설정됩니다.
상대 경로나 파일 이름만 제공하는 경우 구성된 출력 디렉토리를 기준으로 저장됩니다.
formatResult 도구는 다음과 같은 방법으로 경로를 처리합니다.
절대 경로 : 제공된 대로 정확하게 사용됨( /home/user/file.md )
상대 경로 : 구성된 출력 디렉토리( subfolder/file.md )를 기준으로 저장됩니다.
파일 이름만 : 구성된 출력 디렉토리( output.md )에 저장됨
디렉토리 경로 : 경로가 디렉토리를 가리키는 경우 콘텐츠와 타임스탬프를 기반으로 파일 이름이 자동 생성됩니다.
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run build
# Run the server locally
node bin/prysm-mcp
# Debug MCP communication
DEBUG=mcp:* node bin/prysm-mcp
# Set custom output directories
PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR=./my-output PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR=./my-output/images node bin/prysm-mcpnpx를 설치하지 않고도 서버를 직접 실행할 수 있습니다.
# Run with default settings
npx @pinkpixel/prysm-mcp
# Run with custom output directories
PRYSM_OUTPUT_DIR=./my-output PRYSM_IMAGE_OUTPUT_DIR=./my-output/images npx @pinkpixel/prysm-mcpMIT
핑크픽셀 에서 개발
모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 및 Puppeteer 기반
Format scraped data into different structured formats (markdown, HTML, JSON)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The scraped data to format | |
| format | Yes | The format to convert the data to | |
| includeImages | No | Whether to include images in the formatted output (default: true) | |
| output | No | File path to save the formatted result. If not provided, will use the default directory. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the transformation action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies input data, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. The description mentions file saving capability but doesn't clarify default behavior or error conditions.
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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship with sibling scraping tools, doesn't describe what the formatted output looks like, and provides minimal behavioral context. The tool appears to be part of a scraping workflow, but the description doesn't position it within that 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'format' options but the schema already documents the enum values. No additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns is provided.
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: 'Format scraped data into different structured formats (markdown, HTML, JSON)'. It specifies the verb ('format'), resource ('scraped data'), and target formats. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling scraping tools, which are data collection tools rather than formatting tools.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing scraped data first), nor does it explain how this tool relates to the sibling scraping tools (scrapeBalanced, scrapeDeep, scrapeFocused) that presumably produce the data this tool formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Balanced web scraping approach with good coverage and reasonable speed
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| downloadImages | No | Whether to download images locally | |
| maxImages | No | Maximum number of images to extract | |
| maxScrolls | No | Maximum number of scroll attempts (default: 10) | |
| minImageSize | No | Minimum width/height for images in pixels | |
| output | No | Output directory for downloaded images | |
| pages | No | Number of pages to scrape (if pagination is present) | |
| scrapeImages | No | Whether to include images in the scrape result | |
| scrollDelay | No | Delay between scrolls in ms (default: 2000) | |
| timeout | No | Maximum time in ms for the scrape operation (default: 30000) | |
| url | Yes | URL of the webpage to scrape |
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 provides minimal information. It mentions 'good coverage and reasonable speed' which hints at performance characteristics, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it respects robots.txt, what authentication might be needed, rate limiting considerations, error handling, or what the output format looks like. For a scraping tool with 10 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral 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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, while it's structurally efficient, it's under-specified rather than truly concise. Every word earns its place, but there aren't enough words to be truly helpful. The front-loading is good but the content is insufficient.
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 scraping tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'balanced' means operationally, what gets returned (structured data? HTML? images?), error conditions, or performance guarantees. The context signals indicate significant complexity that the description fails to address adequately.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). While the schema thoroughly documents all 10 parameters with clear descriptions, the tool description doesn't provide additional context about how parameters interact (e.g., relationship between downloadImages and scrapeImages) or usage patterns. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 'Balanced web scraping approach with good coverage and reasonable speed' is vague and tautological - it restates the tool name 'scrapeBalanced' without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't clearly state what resource it operates on (web pages) or what specific scraping approach it implements. Compared to siblings like 'scrapeDeep' and 'scrapeFocused', it fails to distinguish itself meaningfully.
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. With sibling tools like 'scrapeDeep' and 'scrapeFocused' available, there's no indication of what 'balanced' means in comparison - whether it's a middle ground between depth and speed, or some other trade-off. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Maximum extraction web scraping (slower but thorough)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| downloadImages | No | Whether to download images locally | |
| maxImages | No | Maximum number of images to extract | |
| maxScrolls | No | Maximum number of scroll attempts (default: 20) | |
| minImageSize | No | Minimum width/height for images in pixels | |
| output | No | Output directory for downloaded images | |
| pages | No | Number of pages to scrape (if pagination is present) | |
| scrapeImages | No | Whether to include images in the scrape result | |
| scrollDelay | No | Delay between scrolls in ms (default: 3000) | |
| url | Yes | URL of the webpage to scrape |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'slower but thorough' which hints at performance and depth, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, what 'maximum extraction' includes beyond images, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 9 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 ('Maximum extraction web scraping') and adds a key behavioral note ('slower but thorough'). There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured for clarity.
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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'maximum extraction' entails beyond images, how results are returned, error conditions, or performance implications. For a web scraping tool with rich parameters, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying image extraction through 'maximum extraction', but this is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting with no added 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 states the tool performs 'maximum extraction web scraping' which indicates a verb (scraping) and resource (web content), but it's vague about what exactly is extracted beyond images implied by parameters. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'slower but thorough' but doesn't specify how it differs from 'scrapeBalanced' or 'scrapeFocused' in concrete terms.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrapeBalanced' or 'scrapeFocused'. The phrase 'slower but thorough' implies a trade-off but doesn't specify scenarios where thoroughness is prioritized over speed or what 'thorough' entails compared to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fast web scraping optimized for speed (fewer scrolls, main content only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| downloadImages | No | Whether to download images locally | |
| maxImages | No | Maximum number of images to extract | |
| maxScrolls | No | Maximum number of scroll attempts (default: 5) | |
| minImageSize | No | Minimum width/height for images in pixels | |
| output | No | Output directory for downloaded images | |
| pages | No | Number of pages to scrape (if pagination is present) | |
| scrapeImages | No | Whether to include images in the scrape result | |
| scrollDelay | No | Delay between scrolls in ms (default: 1000) | |
| url | Yes | URL of the webpage to scrape |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fewer scrolls' and 'main content only', which gives some context about limitations, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'main content' specifically means. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core value proposition. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the key information about speed optimization.
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 web scraping tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it handles errors, what 'main content' means, or provide sufficient behavioral context for proper usage.
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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when 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 tool's purpose as 'Fast web scraping optimized for speed' and specifies it focuses on 'main content only', which distinguishes it from generic scraping. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scrapeBalanced or scrapeDeep beyond the speed optimization hint.
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 speed-focused scraping with limited content extraction, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scrapeBalanced or scrapeDeep. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0formatResultscrapeBalancedscrapeDeepscrapeFocusedEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: formatResult handles output formatting, while the three scraping tools are well-differentiated by their approach (balanced, deep, and focused). The descriptions explicitly clarify their trade-offs (coverage vs. speed vs. thoroughness), leaving no ambiguity about when to use each.
The scraping tools follow a consistent 'scrapeAdjective' pattern (scrapeBalanced, scrapeDeep, scrapeFocused), which is clear and predictable. However, formatResult deviates from this pattern with a verb_noun structure, creating a minor inconsistency in the overall naming scheme.
With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for web scraping and data formatting. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects of the workflow (three scraping strategies and one formatting tool), avoiding bloat while providing essential functionality for the domain.
The toolset covers core scraping operations with multiple strategies and includes formatting capabilities, addressing key needs in the web scraping domain. A minor gap exists in lacking explicit tools for configuration (e.g., setting headers or proxies) or post-processing beyond formatting, but agents can likely work around this with the provided tools.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Zenrows MCP server — Fetch, Extract, Batch, and Browser Sessions for AI coding assistants
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Enable language models to perform advanced AI-powered web scraping with enterprise-grade reliabili…
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pinkpixel-dev/prysm-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
