Skip to main content
Glama
stagas

browser-mcp-server

by stagas
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools share a common goal of capturing console output but are clearly differentiated by their input: one navigates to an existing URL, the other serves a directory first. The descriptions make this distinction obvious, though the similar 'browser-console' phrasing could cause slight hesitation.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow the 'browser-<noun>' pattern with hyphens and end in 'console'. The second tool inserts 'server' to indicate the serving step, which is a minor deviation but still predictable and consistent in style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal but appropriately scoped for its narrow focus on console capture. This is borderline, as two tools may be thin for a general-purpose browser server, but the purpose is specific enough to warrant a small set.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the two primary ways to obtain browser console output: from an arbitrary URL and from locally served content. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to interact with the page or manage a long-running server, but the core workflows are well covered.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • 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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states what the tool does (spawns a server, captures console) but does not disclose side effects such as server lifecycle/cleanup, blocking behavior, rate limits, or what happens to existing servers. This is a significant gap for a tool that starts a server.

    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 that immediately conveys the core purpose and actions. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, and every word contributes meaning.

    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?

    Given seven parameters and the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is relatively minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how console output is delivered, or whether the server is automatically stopped. The parameter schema covers the 'how' but the overall usage context remains incomplete.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters including defaults and semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Spawn') and resource ('Express static server') and clearly states the second function ('capture console output'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'browser-console', which likely focuses only on console capture without serving a directory.

    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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'browser-console'. It implies usage for serving static content and capturing console output, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 only mentions 'streaming support', which is a useful detail, but it omits any side effects (e.g., opening a browser, executing scripts, potential resource usage), prerequisites, or what happens to the browser session. It also does not describe the return format or how streaming terminates.

    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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key feature. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

    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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the waitFor or commands parameters, which represent significant behaviors, nor does it clarify what the captured console output looks like. The schema covers parameters but the description fails to provide a complete mental model of the tool's capabilities.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (url, stream, timeout, waitFor, commands) have descriptive schema definitions. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema—'streaming support' repeats the stream parameter's purpose. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 navigates to a URL and captures console output from the browser, with streaming support. This specific verb+resource combination ('navigate' + 'capture console output') and the qualifier 'from the browser' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'browser-server-console', which likely targets a server-side console.

    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 capturing browser console output after navigation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention exclusions, or provide use-case context (e.g., debugging front-end errors). The presence of a sibling tool suggests a potential distinction but it is not articulated.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

browser-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

browser-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/stagas/browser-mcp-server'

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