Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Puppeteer Real Browser MCP Server

Puppeteer Real Browser MCP Server

by withLinda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

solve_captcha

Solve reCAPTCHA, hCaptcha, or Turnstile challenges in a real browser to bypass bot detection and continue automated tasks.

Instructions

Attempt to solve CAPTCHAs (if supported)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "solve_captcha"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesType of captcha to solve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'if supported' but does not explain what unsupported types mean, whether the tool may fail, or any side effects. The hedged phrasing hints at uncertainty but offers no concrete details.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief, though it could sacrifice some brevity for more useful detail.

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?

The tool is simple with one enum parameter, but the description still leaves key questions unanswered: which CAPTCHA types are actually supported, what happens if a type is unsupported, and what the return value indicates. Without an output schema, the description should explain these aspects but does not.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'type' parameter already having an enum and description. The description adds no additional semantic value, but since the schema handles parameter documentation fully, 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 solves CAPTCHAs, which is a distinct resource from the sibling browser automation tools. However, the hedging word 'Attempt' and the vague 'if supported' qualify the action, making the purpose less definitive than it could be.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The reader is left to infer that it should be used when encountering a CAPTCHA.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools