Playwright 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
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, playwright_click targets elements by CSS selector while playwright_click_text uses text content, and tools like playwright_get_html_content versus playwright_get_text_content provide different types of content retrieval. The descriptions clearly differentiate the specific actions each tool performs.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'playwright_verb' pattern with snake_case throughout. The naming is perfectly predictable, starting with 'playwright_' followed by an action verb that accurately describes the tool's function, such as 'click', 'evaluate', 'fill', or 'navigate'.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for browser automation tasks. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations like navigation, interaction (clicking, filling), content retrieval (HTML, text), and utilities (screenshot, JavaScript execution). This count is ideal for the domain without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core browser automation workflows effectively, including navigation, element interaction, content extraction, and screenshots. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for waiting or handling alerts, but agents can work around these using existing tools like playwright_evaluate for JavaScript-based solutions. The surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.
Average 2.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fill out an input field' implies a write operation but doesn't specify if it clears existing content, handles special keys, requires the element to be visible, or has side effects like triggering events. This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of a web automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like interaction with page state. For a mutation tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide 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, with clear documentation for 'selector' (CSS selector) and 'value' (value to fill). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fill out an input field' states a clear action (fill) and target (input field), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'fill out' entails (e.g., typing text, clearing existing content) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_click or playwright_evaluate, which might also interact with input fields.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), exclusions (e.g., not for non-input elements), or comparisons to siblings like playwright_click_text for clicking text-based elements. This leaves the agent without 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'auto create a session', which hints at initialization behavior, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, navigation state, or what happens if a session already exists.
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 brief and to the point with two clauses, though it contains a typo ('thip op'). It front-loads the core action but could be slightly more polished.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It misses key details like return values, error conditions, and how it integrates with sibling tools in a Playwright context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain the 'url' parameter's format, constraints, or examples, leaving it undocumented beyond the basic schema type.
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 ('Navigate to') and resource ('a URL'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_click' or 'playwright_fill', but the navigation function is distinct enough in context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions auto-creating a session, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or when other tools might be more appropriate for interacting with web pages.
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. It mentions clicking but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it waits for the element to be clickable, handles dynamic content, throws errors if the selector doesn't match, or if it triggers page navigation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and method, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 complexity of a web automation click action, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like error handling, interaction effects (e.g., page changes), or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a mutation tool that could fail or cause unintended side effects.
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%, with the parameter 'selector' fully documented in the schema as 'CSS selector for element to click'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid selectors or constraints. 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 action ('Click') and target ('an element on the page') with the method ('using CSS selector'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like playwright_click_text (which likely clicks based on text content) and playwright_fill (which fills forms). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's for web automation/Playwright context beyond the tool name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page to be loaded first via playwright_navigate), when to prefer playwright_click_text for text-based selection, or any constraints like element visibility. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
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. While 'Click' implies a user interaction that may trigger navigation or state changes, the description doesn't specify what happens on success/failure, whether it waits for elements to be clickable, or if it handles multiple matches. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Click') and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
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 complexity of a browser automation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, performance implications, or return values, leaving the agent to guess about outcomes. For a tool that performs interactive actions on a web page, more context is needed to ensure reliable 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'text' clearly documented in the schema as 'Text content of the element to click'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as case-sensitivity or partial matching behavior. With high schema coverage, 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 action ('Click') and target ('an element on the page by its text content'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_click' (which likely clicks by selector rather than text), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when text-based clicking is preferred over selector-based clicking (e.g., 'playwright_click'), nor does it address prerequisites like requiring the page to be loaded or the element to be visible. This lack of contextual guidance could lead to misuse.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Execute JavaScript' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify security implications, execution context limitations, error handling, or what happens to the browser state. This is inadequate for a tool that runs arbitrary code in a browser environment.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that executes arbitrary JavaScript in a browser. It lacks critical information about return values, error conditions, security context, and how this differs from other playwright tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 the single 'script' parameter completely. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter usage, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Execute JavaScript') and location ('in the browser console'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_get_html_content or playwright_get_text_content, which might also involve JavaScript execution indirectly.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention scenarios where this is preferred over other playwright tools or when it should be avoided, leaving the agent with no usage 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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose important traits like whether it waits for elements to load, handles errors if the selector isn't found, returns full HTML or just outerHTML, or if it's safe for repeated use. The description adds little beyond the basic action.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.
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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the HTML content returns in, whether it includes the entire page or just the selected element, or any error conditions. For a tool interacting with web pages, more context about behavior and output is needed.
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 'selector' parameter clearly documented as 'CSS selector for the element'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, such as selector syntax examples or special cases. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('Get') and resource ('HTML content of the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_text_content' by specifying HTML rather than text content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'playwright_evaluate' which might also retrieve content.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'playwright_get_text_content' for text-only needs, or 'playwright_evaluate' for more complex DOM interactions. There's no context about prerequisites like requiring a page to be loaded first.
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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires an active browser session, if it saves files locally/remotely, error handling, or performance implications. The description is functional but lacks transparency about operational 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently specifies the scope ('current page or a specific element'), making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file path, base64 data), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like playwright_navigate. For a screenshot tool with behavioral complexity, this leaves significant 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 50% (only 'selector' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'name' might be for the screenshot file and 'selector' for element targeting. It doesn't clarify format for 'name' (e.g., file path/extension) or default behavior when 'selector' is omitted, leaving gaps despite some schema coverage.
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 action ('Take a screenshot') and the target ('current page or a specific element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential screenshot-related siblings (none exist in the provided list), so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded), exclusions, or comparisons with other tools like playwright_get_html_content for content capture. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.
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, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, what 'all elements' entails (e.g., scope, filtering), potential performance impacts, or error conditions, leaving key traits undefined.
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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'text content' includes (e.g., trimmed, nested text), the return format, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving gaps for a tool in a complex Playwright context.
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 doesn't add param details, but since there are none, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy while being complete for a parameterless 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 ('Get') and resource ('text content of all elements'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_html_content' or specify what 'all elements' refers to (e.g., current page, selected elements), which prevents a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_get_html_content' or 'playwright_evaluate'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
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:

[![playwright-plus-python-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamvd4/playwright-plus-python-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamvd4/playwright-plus-python-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![playwright-plus-python-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamvd4/playwright-plus-python-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamvd4/playwright-plus-python-mcp)

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/williamvd4/playwright-plus-python-mcp'

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