de en es ja ko ru zh

BrowserStack MCP server

Name: BrowserStack MCP server
Author: browserstack

Official

by browserstack

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

BrowserStack MCP 服务器

赋能团队中的每一位开发人员和测试人员，无论他们是手动测试、初入自动化之旅，还是扩展测试自动化。BrowserStack MCP 服务器让您可以直接在您常用的 AI 工具中使用我们先进的测试平台。

为什么选择 BrowserStack？

💡 使用示例

📱手动应用测试

使用以下提示，即可在 BrowserStack 丰富的真实设备云上使用您的移动应用。告别模拟器！

# Open app on specific device
"open my app on a iPhone 15 Pro Max"

# Debug app crashes
"My app crashed on Android 14 device, can you help me debug?"

与模拟器不同，您可以在真机上测试应用的实际性能。借助高级App-Profiling 功能，您可以实时调试崩溃和性能问题。
从我们的设备网格访问所有主要设备和操作系统版本，我们有严格的 SLA 来在发布当天为我们的全球数据中心提供新发布的设备。

🌐 手动 Web 测试

与应用测试类似，您可以使用以下提示在 BrowserStack 丰富的真实浏览器和设备云上测试您的网站。如果您的设备上没有安装 Edge 浏览器？我们已为您准备好！

# Test your local websites
"open my website hosted on localhost:3001 on Edge"

在不同的浏览器和设备上测试网站。我们支持所有主流操作系统上的所有主流浏览器。
无缝测试您机器上本地托管的网站，无需部署到远程服务器！

使用以下提示在 BrowserStack 的测试平台上运行/调试/修复您的自动化测试。

# Port test suite to BrowserStack
"run my test suite on BrowserStack infra"

# Debug test failures
"My test suite failed, can you help me fix the new failures?"

# Accessibility testing
"check for accessibility issues on my www.mywebsite.com"

利用我们业界领先的测试可观察性功能，修复 CI/CD 流水线报告的测试失败问题。点击此处了解更多信息。
在 BrowserStack 的测试平台上运行用 Jest、Playwright、Selenium 等编写的测试
可访问性测试：使用我们的可访问性测试工具确保符合 WCAG 和 ADA 标准

📋 测试管理

使用以下提示来利用 BrowserStack 的测试管理与 MCP 服务器的功能。

# Create project & folder structure
"create new Test management project named My Demo Project with two sub folders - Login & Checkout"

# Add test cases
"add invalid login test case in Test Management project named My Demo Project"

# List added test cases 
"list high priority Login test cases from Test Management project - My Demo Project"

# Create test run
"create a test run for Login tests from Test Management project - My Demo Project"

# Update test results
"update test results as passed for Login tests test run from My Demo Project"

Related MCP server: Portainer MCP

🛠️ 安装

创建BrowserStack帐户
- 如果您还没有帐户，请注册BrowserStack 。
- ℹ️如果您有一个开源项目，我们将能够为您提供免费计划。
- 拥有帐户（并购买适当的计划）后，请从帐户设置中记下您的username和access_key 。
确保你使用的 Node 版本 >= 18.0 。使用node --version检查你的 Node 版本。推荐版本： v22.15.0 (LTS)

安装 MCP 服务器

VSCode（Copilot-代理模式）： .vscode/mcp.json ：

{
  "servers": {
    "browserstack": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@browserstack/mcp-server@latest"],
      "env": {
        "BROWSERSTACK_USERNAME": "<username>",
        "BROWSERSTACK_ACCESS_KEY": "<access_key>"
      }
    }
  }
}

在 VSCode 中，确保单击 MCP 服务器中的Start按钮来启动服务器。
对于游标： .cursor/mcp.json ：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "browserstack": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@browserstack/mcp-server@latest"],
      "env": {
        "BROWSERSTACK_USERNAME": "<username>",
        "BROWSERSTACK_ACCESS_KEY": "<access_key>"
      }
    }
  }
}

克劳德桌面： ~/claude_desktop_config.json ：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "browserstack": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@browserstack/mcp-server@latest"],
      "env": {
        "BROWSERSTACK_USERNAME": "<username>",
        "BROWSERSTACK_ACCESS_KEY": "<access_key>"
      }
    }
  }
}

通过 Smithery 安装

要通过Smithery自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 BrowserStack 测试平台服务器：

npx -y @smithery/cli install @browserstack/mcp-server --client claude

🤝 推荐的 MCP 客户端

我们建议使用Github Copilot 或 Cursor进行自动化测试 + 调试用例。
对于手动测试用例（实时测试），我们建议使用Claude Desktop 。

⚠️ 重要提示

BrowserStack MCP 服务器正在积极开发中，目前支持 MCP 规范的子集。更多功能即将添加。
工具调用依赖于 MCP 客户端，而 MCP 客户端又依赖于 LLM，因此可能会出现一些不确定的行为，从而导致意外结果。如果您有任何建议或反馈，请提交问题进行讨论。

📝 贡献

欢迎大家贡献代码！如有任何修改意见，请提交问题讨论。👉点击此处查看我们的贡献指南

📞 支持

如需支持，请：

查看我们的文档
如果您遇到任何与 MCP 服务器相关的问题，请在我们的GitHub 存储库中打开一个问题。
如有任何其他疑问，请联系我们的支持团队。

🚀 更多功能即将推出

敬请期待精彩更新！有任何建议吗？请提交问题进行讨论。

🔗 资源

Available Tools

5 tools

getFailuresInLastRunA

Use this tool to debug failures in the last run of the test suite on BrowserStack. Use only when browserstack.yml file is present in the project root.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`buildName`	Yes	Name of the build to get failures for. This is the 'build' key in the browserstack.yml file. If not sure, ask the user for the build name.
`projectName`	Yes	Name of the project to get failures for. This is the 'projectName' key in the browserstack.yml file. If not sure, ask the user for the project name.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite (browserstack.yml file) and implies a read-only debugging function, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., failure details format). 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a usage condition. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a debugging tool with two required parameters, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (buildName and projectName) in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples 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 tool's purpose: 'debug failures in the last run of the test suite on BrowserStack.' It specifies the action (debug failures) and resource (test suite on BrowserStack), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' or 'startAccessibilityScan' beyond the debugging focus.

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 for when to use the tool: 'Use only when browserstack.yml file is present in the project root.' This gives a prerequisite condition, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose this over 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' for debugging versus execution.

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

runAppLiveSessionB

Use this tool when user wants to manually check their app on a particular mobile device using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure. Can be used to debug crashes, slow performance, etc.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appPath`	Yes	The path to the .ipa or .apk file to install on the device. Always ask the user for the app path, do not assume it.
`desiredPhone`	Yes	The full name of the device to run the app on. Example: 'iPhone 12 Pro' or 'Samsung Galaxy S20' or 'Google Pixel 6'. Always ask the user for the device they want to use, do not assume it.
`desiredPlatform`	Yes	Which platform to run on, examples: 'android', 'ios'. Set this based on the app path provided.
`desiredPlatformVersion`	Yes	The platform version to run the app on. Example: '12.0' for Android devices or '16.0' for iOS devices

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure and can be used for debugging, but doesn't describe what happens during the session, whether it's interactive or automated, session duration limits, authentication requirements, or what output to expect. Significant behavioral details are missing for a cloud-based testing 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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and primary use cases. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific examples. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the session starts, what kind of output or interface the user gets, session management, or error handling. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered for a cloud-based testing tool.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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: 'manually check their app on a particular mobile device using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure' with specific use cases like debugging crashes and slow performance. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on mobile app testing rather than browser sessions or test automation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides some usage context ('when user wants to manually check their app') and implies this is for interactive debugging rather than automated testing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. sibling tools like 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' or 'runBrowserLiveSession', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

runBrowserLiveSessionB

Use this tool when user wants to manually check their website on a particular browser and OS combination using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure. Can be used to debug layout issues, compatibility problems, etc.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`desiredBrowser`	Yes	The browser to run the test on. Example: 'Chrome', 'IE', 'Safari', 'Edge'. Always ask the user for the browser they want to use, do not assume it.
`desiredBrowserVersion`	Yes	The version of the browser to use. Example: 133.0, 134.0, 87.0
`desiredOS`	Yes	The operating system to run the browser on. Example: 'Windows', 'OS X'
`desiredOSVersion`	Yes	The OS version to run the browser on. Example: '10' for Windows, '12' for macOS, '14' for iOS
`desiredURL`	Yes	The URL of the website to test. This can be a local URL (e.g., http://localhost:3000) or a public URL. Always ask the user for the URL, do not assume it.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure and manual checking, but doesn't disclose whether this starts a live session, requires authentication, has time/rate limits, costs, or what happens after the check. For a tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations, 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and use cases without wasted words. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for use cases.

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 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks completeness about behavioral aspects (e.g., session management, authentication, limitations). It's minimally viable for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for understanding how it behaves during/after execution.

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 5 parameters thoroughly with examples and guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying these parameters are needed for browser/OS/URL selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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's purpose: 'manually check their website on a particular browser and OS combination using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure' with specific use cases like debugging layout issues. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on manual website testing (vs. getFailuresInLastRun for failures, runAppLiveSession for apps, etc.), though not explicitly contrasting each sibling.

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 for when to use it: 'when user wants to manually check their website on a particular browser and OS combination' for debugging layout/compatibility issues. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies this is for manual website testing vs. automated testing or other functions.

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

runTestsOnBrowserStackC

Use this tool to get instructions for running tests on BrowserStack.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`desiredPlatforms`	Yes	The platforms the user wants to test on. Always ask this to the user, do not try to infer this.
`detectedBrowserAutomationFramework`	Yes	The automation framework configured in the project. Example: 'playwright', 'selenium'
`detectedLanguage`	Yes	The programming language used in the project. Example: 'nodejs', 'python'
`detectedTestingFramework`	Yes	The testing framework used in the project. Example: 'jest', 'pytest'

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'get instructions' but does not clarify what form these instructions take (e.g., text, links, steps), whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be slightly more informative to improve utility while maintaining brevity.

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 tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the instructions entail, how they are generated, or what the user should expect as a result. This leaves too many gaps for effective agent use, especially without behavioral context or output details.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why these inputs are needed for generating instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'to get instructions for running tests on BrowserStack', which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('get instructions') and target ('running tests on BrowserStack'), but lacks specificity about what kind of instructions or how they are delivered. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'runAppLiveSession' or 'runBrowserLiveSession', which might also involve BrowserStack testing.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and there is no comparison to sibling tools like 'runAppLiveSession' or 'startAccessibilityScan'. Usage is implied only by the purpose, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

startAccessibilityScanC

Use this tool to start an accessibility scan for a list of URLs on BrowserStack.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the accessibility scan
`pageURL`	Yes	The URL to scan for accessibility issues

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool starts a scan but doesn't describe what the scan entails (e.g., duration, asynchronous nature, permissions required, rate limits, or what 'start' implies in terms of immediate results). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely initiates a process.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured if it included key behavioral details.

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 starting a scan (likely an asynchronous operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting the scan, expected outputs, error handling, or how to retrieve results, leaving critical gaps for agent usage.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'pageURL'). The description mentions 'a list of URLs' but the schema only has one 'pageURL' parameter, which adds minor confusion. However, since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add meaningful semantic details beyond the schema.

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 ('start an accessibility scan') and the target ('for a list of URLs on BrowserStack'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'runTestsOnBrowserStack' or 'runBrowserLiveSession', which might also involve scanning or testing URLs, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to sibling tools like 'getFailuresInLastRun' or 'runTestsOnBrowserStack', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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.

5 tool updatesv1.0.0Apr 25, 2025
- First observedgetFailuresInLastRun
- First observedrunAppLiveSession
- First observedrunBrowserLiveSession
- First observedrunTestsOnBrowserStack
- First observedstartAccessibilityScan

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: getFailuresInLastRun is for debugging test failures, runAppLiveSession is for manual mobile app testing, runBrowserLiveSession is for manual website testing, runTestsOnBrowserStack is for test execution instructions, and startAccessibilityScan is for accessibility scanning. The descriptions reinforce these distinct use cases, making tool selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming follows a mixed pattern: three tools use 'run' as a verb (runAppLiveSession, runBrowserLiveSession, runTestsOnBrowserStack), while getFailuresInLastRun uses 'get' and startAccessibilityScan uses 'start'. All tools use camelCase consistently, but the verb choices vary, creating a readable but not fully consistent convention across the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, this is well-scoped for a BrowserStack testing server. Each tool serves a distinct and essential function in the testing workflow—debugging, manual testing (app and browser), test execution, and accessibility scanning—making the count appropriate without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers key BrowserStack functionalities: debugging failures, manual testing for apps and browsers, test execution guidance, and accessibility scanning. Minor gaps might include automated test reporting or configuration management, but the core workflows are well-covered, allowing agents to perform most common testing tasks effectively.

Maintenance

ActivityActive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Research Mcp A
io.github.varvararatta
MCP server for Research
Research & Data Search
2
mcpOAuth
com.gitlab
Official GitLab MCP Server
Version Control CI/CD & DevOps Developer Tools
2
Education Mcp
io.github.varvararatta
MCP server for Education
Education & Learning Tools Note Taking
2
mcp-server A
com.blockscout
MCP server for Blockscout
Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech Search
16244

Related MCP Servers

MCP Telegram
Communication Agent Orchestration
dryeab
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP Server for Telegram
Updated a year ago (2025-06-15 10:11 UTC)
251
MIT
Portainer MCPofficial
Autonomous Agents Virtualization
portainer
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Official Portainer MCP server
Updated 4 days ago (2026-09-02 11:19 UTC)
225
MIT
Liveblocksofficial
App Automation Developer Tools
liveblocks
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
MCP server for Liveblocks.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-05-11 11:10 UTC)
39
18
Apache 2.0
GitHub MCP Serverofficial
Version Control Developer Tools
github
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
GitHub's official MCP Server
Updated a day ago (2026-09-05 05:18 UTC)
32,723
MIT

Appeared in Searches

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/browserstack/mcp-server'

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

BrowserStack MCP 服务器

为什么选择 BrowserStack？

💡 使用示例

📱手动应用测试

🌐 手动 Web 测试

🧪 自动化测试（Playwright、Selenium、A11y 等..）

📋 测试管理

🛠️ 安装

通过 Smithery 安装

🤝 推荐的 MCP 客户端

⚠️ 重要提示

📝 贡献

📞 支持

🚀 更多功能即将推出

🔗 资源

Available Tools

TDQS

TDQS

TDQS

TDQS

TDQS

Tool Schema Changelog

TDQS

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

MCP Telegram

Portainer MCPofficial

Liveblocksofficial

GitHub MCP Serverofficial

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API