A
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceRemote MCP server for web scraping with anti-bot evasion. Provides stealth HTTP fetching, headless browser with Cloudflare bypass, CSS selectors, YouTube transcripts, and Markdown conversion.
1
MIT
VPN.FAIL MCP
Server Details
Free remote MCP server for fetching public web pages through a rotating proxy pool.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- vpnfail/vpnfail-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- VPN.FAIL MCP
Available Tools
3 toolsscrapeBInspect
Fetch one URL with optional verified exit country or city, browser rendering, screenshot, or CSS readiness selector.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| city | No | ||
| mode | No | http | |
| output | No | markdown | |
| country | No | ||
| wait_for | No | ||
| screenshot | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
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 does mention optional proxy location, browser rendering, screenshots, and CSS wait conditions, which gives some insight. However, it does not explain the default output format, whether the tool returns raw HTML or markdown, or any rate limits/error behavior, leaving notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently packs the core action and all major optional features. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main capabilities but omits important details like parameter meanings for mode/output, default behaviors, and potential side effects. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool of this complexity.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for country/city (verified exit), wait_for (CSS readiness selector), and screenshot, but leaves mode and output completely unexplained. The mapping between description terms and parameters is partial, so it does not fully compensate for the missing 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 fetches one URL and lists optional capabilities (verified exit country/city, browser rendering, screenshot, CSS readiness selector). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_status and usage, which deal with monitoring and usage rather than scraping.
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 exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. This is a lack of explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
service_statusBInspect
Return current proxy inventory and MCP request availability.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
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 for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, whether authentication is needed, or whether the information is cached or real-time. This is only minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description sufficiently covers the main return items ('proxy inventory' and 'MCP request availability'). The minimal context is acceptable for a simple status check, though it could slightly clarify what 'availability' means.
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 zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no params; there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resources ('proxy inventory' and 'MCP request availability'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings, but the distinct resource names and tool name differentiate it adequately from 'scrape' and 'usage'.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or under what conditions it should be called. It only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
usageAInspect
Return the anonymous client's hourly, daily, weekly, and rolling 30-day quota usage.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'anonymous client' implies no authentication. However, it does not mention whether this affects any counters, possible errors, or rate-limit implications. The output schema covers return structure, but additional context on side effects (if any) is missing.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and specifies the exact data returned. No unnecessary words or repetition; every element adds value.
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?
This is a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is returned but could be enhanced with a note on typical use cases (e.g., avoiding rate limits) or a pointer to a sibling like 'service_status' for alternative needs. Given the low complexity, the minor gap is acceptable.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters as there are none. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('quota usage') with time granularities ('hourly, daily, weekly, and rolling 30-day'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scrape' and 'service_status' by focusing on usage quota rather than content or service health.
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 the tool is for checking quota usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. Since the sibling tools exist (e.g., 'service_status'), some exclusionary or comparative guidance would improve clarity, but this is not provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Changed
scrape1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "default": "", + "title": "City", + "type": "string" +}
1 tool update
- Changed
scrape4 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / countryAdded value: +{ + "default": "", + "title": "Country", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / modeAdded value: +{ + "default": "http", + "title": "Mode", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / screenshotAdded value: +{ + "default": false, + "title": "Screenshot", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Input schema / properties / wait_forAdded value: +{ + "default": "", + "title": "Wait For", + "type": "string" +}
3 tool updates
- First observed
scrape - First observed
service_status - First observed
usage
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
One MCP server for 180+ live web-data APIs returning clean JSON from sites that block scrapers.
MCP server for web extraction and rendering via AceDataCloud WebExtrator
Scrapingdog MCP — wraps Scrapingdog (scrapingdog.com), a proxy-based web
Remote MCP server for hotel rate monitoring, parity checks, and pricing intelligence via Apify.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for fetching web pages without robots.txt restrictions, supporting all standard HTTP methods, custom headers, body, redirect control, and timeout settings.117MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA powerful MCP server for fetching and transforming web content into various formats (HTML, JSON, Markdown, Plain Text) with ease.424,26241MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server providing free, IP-direct tools for web search, crawling, anti-detect browsing, and structured data from Wikipedia, Wikidata, GitHub, and YouTube.61MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: scrape performs the core action, service_status reports server health, and usage tracks client quotas. There is zero overlap in their functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names are single lowercase words following the same simple pattern. While not verb_noun, the naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is minimal but well-scoped for this niche VPN proxy service. Each tool is necessary and earns its place without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the primary scraping action, plus service status and usage tracking for operational awareness. A minor gap is lack of finer-grained proxy management, but the core domain is fully addressed.