Browserbase MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as navigate, act, observe, extract, and session management. However, there is some overlap between browserbase_stagehand_act and multi_browserbase_stagehand_act_session, which are essentially the same action but for different session contexts, which could cause confusion if not carefully noted. The descriptions help clarify this, but the duplication is noticeable.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a mixed pattern: some tools use a consistent verb_noun format like browserbase_stagehand_navigate, while others add suffixes like _session or prefixes like multi_. This creates a readable but inconsistent convention, as the multi-session tools mirror single-session ones with added qualifiers, leading to a somewhat cluttered naming scheme.
Tool Count3/5
With 17 tools, the count is borderline high for a browser automation server, as it includes many duplicated functions for single vs. multi-session workflows. This could feel heavy and redundant, though it covers both use cases comprehensively. A more streamlined approach might reduce the tool count without losing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for browser automation, including session creation, navigation, interaction (act/observe), data extraction, and session management for both single and multi-session workflows. There are no obvious gaps; all essential operations for controlling and scraping web pages are well-represented with clear guidance on usage.
Average 4.1/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
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 is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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 behavioral disclosure. It describes the return value ('Returns the complete URL including protocol, domain, path, and any query parameters or fragments'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the session is invalid), performance characteristics (e.g., speed or rate limits), or side effects (e.g., whether this is a read-only operation). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Gets the current URL of the browser page.'), followed by details on the return value, and ends with contextual information ('for a specific session'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is adequate for basic use. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on error cases, behavioral constraints, or how the return value is structured (e.g., as a string or object). This makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'sessionId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how to obtain the sessionId or its format). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gets the current URL of the browser page.' It specifies the verb ('Gets') and resource ('current URL'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'browserbase_stagehand_get_url' by indicating it's 'for a specific session.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'browserbase_stagehand_get_all_urls,' which might retrieve multiple URLs, leaving some ambiguity.
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 by mentioning 'for a specific session,' suggesting it should be used when targeting a particular browser session, as opposed to a default or global context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browserbase_stagehand_get_url' (which might not require a session parameter) or 'browserbase_stagehand_get_all_urls' (which might retrieve multiple URLs). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it performs a shutdown operation ('closes', 'shutting down'), handles cleanup ('browser cleanup'), and terminates recording ('terminates the session recording'), which are useful for understanding effects. However, it lacks details on error handling, side effects, or confirmation of success.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the action, target, and key outcomes ('shutting down', 'cleanup', 'terminates recording') without any redundant information. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic operational context but is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., must have an active session). For a session management tool, more details on behavioral implications would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for this operation, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Closes') and resource ('current Browserbase session'), and mentions the mechanism ('properly shutting down the Stagehand instance'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'browserbase_session_create' by indicating termination rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all session-related tools.
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 implies usage after a session is active but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to close vs. keep a session open) or any prerequisites. It mentions 'current Browserbase session' but doesn't specify how to identify or handle multiple sessions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for confidence in URLs and suggests a fallback to Google, which adds some context about reliability and potential errors. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors like whether navigation is synchronous/asynchronous, error handling, or performance implications, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 the complexity of a navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions. This leaves room for improvement in fully guiding an AI agent, especially for a tool that likely involves network interactions and state changes.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (sessionId and url). The description doesn't add any additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as URL format constraints or sessionId usage. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Purpose4/5
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 'Navigate to a URL in the browser,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'browserbase_stagehand_navigate' or 'multi_browserbase_stagehand_get_url_session,' which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest differentiation level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Only use this tool with URLs you're confident will work and stay up to date. Otherwise, use https://google.com as the starting point.' This offers practical guidance but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it compared to sibling tools, such as for non-navigation purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that actions should be atomic and specific, and mentions using 'observe before using act' as a best practice. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, performance implications, or what happens if the action fails (e.g., does it retry or throw an error?). The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediately providing examples and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second gives positive and negative examples, and the third provides contextual notes. There's no wasted text or redundancy.
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 the complexity of a web interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics indirectly, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values. For a tool that performs actions on web pages, more context on what to expect after invocation would be helpful, but the existing description is adequate for basic use.
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 already documents all three parameters (sessionId, action, variables) with detailed descriptions. The description reinforces the guidance for the 'action' parameter with examples and warnings, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs actions on web page elements with examples like 'Click the sign in button' or 'Type 'hello' into the search input'. It specifies the action should be atomic and specific, distinguishing it from multi-step actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browserbase_stagehand_observe' or 'browserbase_stagehand_navigate', which likely have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for atomic, specific actions on web page elements, and when to avoid it: for multi-step actions like 'Order me pizza'. It also implies usage context by mentioning 'for a specific session' and referencing 'observe before using act'. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like 'browserbase_stagehand_extract' or other sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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. It explains that the tool 'Creates an isolated browser session with independent cookies, authentication, and state,' which clarifies its mutating nature and isolation behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or session lifecycle management, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage guidelines. It uses a list of scenarios for clarity but could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy in examples. Overall, most sentences add value, and the structure is logical, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creating parallel sessions) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects like purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful for a mutation tool with no output schema, leaving some contextual gaps.
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 already documents both parameters ('name' and 'browserbaseSessionID') with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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's purpose: 'Create parallel browser session for multi-session workflows.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('parallel browser session'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'browserbase_session_create' by emphasizing parallel/multi-session capabilities, making it specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need multiple browser instances running simultaneously' and lists specific scenarios (e.g., parallel data scraping, A/B testing). It also states when to use alternatives: 'Always pair with session-specific tools (those ending with '_session')' and implicitly contrasts with non-session tools, offering clear context and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool's purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance impact, file output format, or error conditions. However, it does add value by explaining the tool's role in the Stagehand workflow, which isn't covered by structured fields.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage well but could benefit from mentioning behavioral aspects like what the screenshot returns or any limitations. However, for a simple tool, it provides sufficient context for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('name'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as per the rules.
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 specific action ('Takes a screenshot') and resource ('of the current page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like navigation or extraction tools. It explicitly mentions the context of 'controlling the browser with Stagehand,' which helps differentiate its purpose from generic screenshot tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to learn where you are on the page when controlling the browser with Stagehand') and when not to use it ('Only use this tool when the other tools are not sufficient to get the information you need'). This directly addresses alternatives among sibling tools, offering clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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. It effectively communicates that actions should be atomic and specific, which is crucial for web automation. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens if the element isn't found, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose with examples, and another providing clear usage boundaries. Every sentence adds essential value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and apply.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual guidance on usage and limitations. It effectively complements the schema by emphasizing atomicity and referencing sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of output information, but given the tool's focus on action rather than observation, this is somewhat mitigated.
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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the guidance for the 'action' parameter but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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's purpose: 'Performs an action on a web page element' with specific examples like clicking buttons or typing text. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'observe' or 'navigate' by focusing on direct interaction rather than observation or navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for atomic, specific actions on web elements, and when not to use it: for multi-step actions. It references the 'observe' sibling as an alternative when unsure, offering clear context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only behavior (it 'gets' URLs) and output format (a mapping), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but misses some 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow with the return value. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete—it explains what the tool does and returns. A minor gap is the lack of output schema details (e.g., structure of the mapping), but for this low-complexity tool, it's sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.
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 specific action ('Gets the current URLs of all active browser sessions') and the resource involved ('session IDs to their current URLs'), distinguishing it from siblings like browserbase_stagehand_get_url (which gets a single URL) and browserbase_session_list (which lists sessions without URLs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving URLs from multiple active sessions, providing clear context for when to use it (e.g., monitoring all sessions). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like browserbase_stagehand_get_url for single sessions, which would elevate the score to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Gets'), returns the complete URL including protocol, domain, path, query parameters, and fragments, and specifies it retrieves from the 'current' page. It doesn't mention error cases or performance aspects, but covers the core behavior adequately.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and return value without any waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a read-only operation. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or state dependencies, but it suffices for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for handling this efficiently.
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 specific action ('Gets the current URL') and resource ('of the browser page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'browserbase_stagehand_navigate' (which changes URLs) and 'browserbase_stagehand_get_all_urls' (which retrieves multiple URLs). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
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 by specifying it retrieves the 'current URL,' suggesting it should be used when the agent needs to know the active page location. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browserbase_stagehand_get_all_urls' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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. It mentions the requirement for URL confidence and suggests a fallback, which adds useful context about reliability considerations. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or what happens if navigation fails, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both of which add value: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidelines. There is no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (navigation with reliability concerns), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose and usage guidelines. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or the navigation outcome, though the guidelines partially compensate for this gap.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'url' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or validation rules. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Navigate to a URL') and resource ('in the browser'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like screenshot, extract, or observe that perform different browser interactions. It directly communicates the core function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Only use this tool with URLs you're confident will work and stay up to date') and offers a clear alternative ('Otherwise, use https://google.com as the starting point'). This helps the agent decide between direct navigation and starting from a search engine.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it extracts based on instructions and schema, works best with specific inputs, and is non-interactive (contrasted with 'observe'). However, it lacks details on potential limitations, error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits or timeouts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage guidelines. Each sentence adds value, such as distinguishing from siblings and offering best practices. However, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding minor redundancy, like repeating 'extract' and 'information' in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (extraction from web pages) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and behavioral context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how to use it effectively. However, it could benefit from mentioning output format or error cases to be fully complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'instruction' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some context by emphasizing the need for clear, specific instructions and a well-defined JSON schema, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already covers, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('extracts structured information and text content') and resources ('from the current web page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'observe' for interactive elements. It explicitly mentions scraping data, gathering information, and pulling specific content, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to get text content, data, or information from a page') and when not to ('for interactive elements like buttons, forms, or clickable items, use the observe tool instead'). It also offers best practices for effective use, such as providing clear instructions and a well-defined schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining behavioral traits: it describes what the tool returns ('detailed information about identified elements including properties, location, and interaction capabilities'), how to use the output ('can then be used to craft precise actions'), and performance tips ('the more specific your observation instruction, the more accurate the element identification will be'). It doesn't mention error handling or limitations, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key information (purpose and usage guidelines in the first sentences). Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Think of this as your 'eyes' on the page' is somewhat redundant), but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and output usage. It lacks details on error cases or specific return formats, but for a tool with no output schema, it provides sufficient context for effective use.
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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning 'observation instruction' and implying specificity, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('observes and identifies') and resources ('interactive elements on the current web page'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for actionable elements only, not for extraction (contrasting with 'extract tool').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use ('when you need to locate elements before performing actions with the act tool') and when not to use ('DO NOT use this tool for extracting text content or data - use the extract tool instead'), clearly differentiating from alternatives like 'act' and 'extract' tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior as a non-interactive extraction tool for scraping data, specifying that it works best with detailed instructions and a schema. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits or timeouts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage guidelines. While it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating the need for specific instructions), each sentence adds value, such as distinguishing from sibling tools and providing best practices, making it efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (extraction with instructions and schema) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects well, but could benefit from more details on output format or error scenarios to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the importance of specific instructions and a well-defined JSON schema, but does not provide additional semantic context or examples not already covered in the schema descriptions.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('extracts structured information and text content') and resources ('from the current web page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'observe' for interactive elements. It explicitly mentions the need for instructions and a schema, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to get text content, data, or information from a page') and when not to ('for interactive elements like buttons, forms, or clickable items, use the observe tool instead'). It also offers best practices for effective use, such as providing clear instructions and a well-defined schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it tracks and displays session details (IDs, names, ages, Browserbase session IDs), is critical for management, and should be used frequently for monitoring and debugging. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with key information but includes some redundant emphasis (e.g., 'Critical tool for multi-session management!', 'Essential for debugging...'). Sentences like 'Track all parallel sessions:' and 'Shows all active browser sessions...' are efficient, but the overall text could be more streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multi-session management), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and behavioral context well. However, it could benefit from more details on output format or error handling to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, maintaining the baseline score.
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's purpose: 'Track all parallel sessions' and 'Shows all active browser sessions with their IDs, names, ages, and Browserbase session IDs.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's 'ONLY WORKS WITH MULTI-SESSION TOOLS!' and specifically for multi-session management, unlike single-session tools like browserbase_session_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Use this frequently to monitor your parallel automation workflows, verify sessions are running, and get session IDs for session-specific tools.' It also specifies context: 'Essential for debugging and resource management in complex multi-browser scenarios,' and implies alternatives by noting it's for multi-session tools only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's an observation tool (non-destructive), returns detailed element information (properties, location, interaction capabilities), and emphasizes that specificity improves accuracy. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance constraints or session dependencies beyond the parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Most sentences earn their place by providing usage guidance, behavioral context, or parameter advice. However, the final sentence 'Think of this as your 'eyes' on the page to find exactly what you need to interact with. (for a specific session)' is somewhat redundant with earlier content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining purpose, usage context, behavioral characteristics, and parameter importance. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the session context (implied by 'session' in the name) or potential error cases, but covers most essential aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 parameters well. The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of specific instructions ('The more specific your observation instruction, the more accurate the element identification will be') and providing context about how the instruction parameter should be used, though it doesn't add new parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Observes and identifies specific interactive elements on the current web page that can be used for subsequent actions.' It specifies the verb (observe/identify), resource (interactive elements on web page), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning what it's NOT for (extracting text content, which is for the extract tool).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use ('Use this tool when you need to locate elements before performing actions with the act tool') and when NOT to use ('DO NOT use this tool for extracting text content or data - use the extract tool instead'). It explicitly names alternative tools (act and extract) for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: the tool is destructive ('terminates', 'ends', 'cannot be recovered'), has financial implications ('avoid resource waste and billing charges'), and is resource-critical ('each unclosed session continues consuming resources'). However, it lacks details on error handling or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediately following with critical usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, the exclamation points and slightly emphatic tone ('Critical for responsible...') could be streamlined for a more neutral, concise presentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with financial implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral risks, and parameter context. It adequately informs the agent about the tool's role and criticality, though it could benefit from mentioning error cases or response expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by emphasizing the importance of the sessionId ('Double-check this ID') and linking it to a sibling tool ('get from multi_browserbase_stagehand_session_list'), which enhances understanding of parameter usage and consequences.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('cleanup', 'terminates', 'ends', 'frees') and resources ('parallel session', 'browser session', 'Browserbase session', 'cloud resources'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'multi-session workflows' and referencing 'multi_browserbase_stagehand_session_list' for session IDs, unlike the simpler 'browserbase_session_close'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Always use this when finished with a session') and when not to use it (implied: don't use it prematurely as 'once closed, the session cannot be recovered!'). It also references an alternative source for session IDs ('get from multi_browserbase_stagehand_session_list'), offering clear context for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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. It effectively describes key behaviors: it creates or reuses sessions based on sessionId, initializes Stagehand, updates the active session, and includes configuration flags (proxies, stealth, viewport, cookies, etc.). It also warns about the single-session limitation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like resource consumption or error handling.
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 well-structured and concise. It front-loads the core purpose, includes a critical warning, specifies when to use alternatives, and details functionality—all in three sentences with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, usage, and behavior. It explains the parameter semantics and distinguishes from siblings. However, it lacks details on output format or error cases, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 the sessionId parameter. The description adds value by explaining the semantics: 'Optional session ID to use/reuse. If not provided or invalid, a new session is created.' This clarifies the reuse behavior beyond the schema's basic description.
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's purpose: 'Create or reuse a single cloud browser session using Browserbase with fully initialized Stagehand.' It specifies the verb (create/reuse), resource (browser session), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it's for 'SINGLE browser workflows only.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'This tool is for SINGLE browser workflows only. If you need multiple browser sessions running simultaneously (parallel scraping, A/B testing, multiple accounts), use 'multi_browserbase_stagehand_session_create' instead.' It clearly defines the scope and names the alternative tool.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-browserbase MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaibhavAtlys/mcp-server-browserbase/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaibhavAtlys/mcp-server-browserbase)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-browserbase MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaibhavAtlys/mcp-server-browserbase/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vaibhavAtlys/mcp-server-browserbase)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/vaibhavAtlys/mcp-server-browserbase'

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