Skip to main content
Glama
pshivapr

Selenium MCP Server

by pshivapr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Selenium MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • MCP Selenium Server

      navin2031992
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to automate browser interactions using Selenium WebDriver, supporting multiple browsers and tools for navigation, clicking, typing, screenshots, and more.
      1,195 npm
      MIT

    • Selenium MCP Server

      AbyvargheseMandapathel
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents and MCP clients to automate web browsers via Selenium WebDriver, supporting Chrome, Firefox, and Edge in headless or visible mode with tools for navigation, interaction, content extraction, screenshots, and scripting.
      21
      24 npm
      MIT

    • Selenium MCP Server

      GonzaloRando03
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides 66 tools for browser automation using Selenium WebDriver, enabling AI agents to navigate, interact, capture screenshots, assert conditions, manage cookies, handle tabs, execute HTTP requests, record sessions, and more.
      187 npm
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Give agents eyes on the webHosted screenshot MCP. Send a URL, get a pixel-perfect image. $0.002 per grab. Works with Claude, Cursor, and Codex.grabbit.liveAd

    TDQS

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 56 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct browser action or element interaction, with clear boundaries between similar tools like window switching variants. Descriptions are precise enough to avoid confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow the 'browser_verb_noun' pattern consistently, with snake_case throughout. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    56 tools is high but justified given the comprehensive scope of browser automation. However, some tools could be combined or removed without loss of functionality.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers most core browser automation tasks, but notable gaps like alert handling (accept/dismiss) and window handle retrieval are missing. Essential workflows are present, but some important operations are absent.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources