Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Playwright MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides browser automation capabilities for LLMs using Playwright, leveraging structured accessibility snapshots to interact with web pages without needing vision models. It enables tasks like web navigation, data extraction, and automated testing through a lightweight and deterministic toolset.
      6 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides browser automation capabilities for LLMs using Playwright's accessibility tree instead of screenshots. It enables models to interact with web pages through fast, structured, and deterministic data snapshots.
      6,908,874 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides browser automation capabilities using Playwright, allowing LLMs to interact with web pages through structured accessibility snapshots without needing screenshots or vision models.
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides browser automation through Playwright, enabling LLMs to interact with web pages using structured accessibility snapshots instead of screenshots.
      6,908,874 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides browser automation capabilities for LLMs using Playwright's accessibility tree, enabling web page interaction through structured data without vision models.
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 25 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: navigation, interaction (click/hover/type), inspection (snapshot/find/console/network), and page-level operations are well separated. A few boundaries blur: browser_close vs browser_tabs (which also closes tabs), browser_evaluate vs browser_run_code_unsafe (both execute JS, differing mainly in scope/safety), and browser_take_screenshot explicitly defers to browser_snapshot for actions. These overlaps are minor and mostly clarified by descriptions.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share a consistent browser_ snake_case prefix with predictable verb/noun forms (browser_navigate, browser_click, browser_select_option). Minor deviations exist where names are noun-only (browser_tabs, browser_snapshot, browser_console_messages, browser_network_requests) while sibling tools use verbs, but the pattern remains readable and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    25 tools is at the heavy end for a single-purpose server, and the surface is large enough that an agent must choose carefully among many similar-sounding browser operations. Each tool does map to a real browser capability, but the count is borderline enough to feel dense rather than tightly scoped.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core browser automation lifecycle well: navigation, tab management, element interaction, forms, keyboard, dialogs, console/network inspection, screenshots, emulation, file upload, and drag-and-drop. Gaps remain around cookie/storage management (localStorage/sessionStorage) and download handling, which agents may need but can partially work around via evaluate.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo issues