Browser Use Server
The Browser Use Server enables browser automation via Python scripts within the Cline ecosystem, allowing programmatic web interactions with these capabilities:
Capture Screenshots: Take screenshots of webpages (full-page or viewport)
Retrieve HTML Content: Fetch the HTML of webpages
Execute JavaScript: Run custom JavaScript code on webpages
Access Console Logs: Retrieve browser console logs
Custom Interaction Steps: Perform sequences of actions (clicking, scrolling, form filling, authentication) before main operations
Headless Automation: Optional Xvfb support for headless operation to avoid bot detection
LLM Integration: Support for multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Groq, Gemini)
Vision Capabilities: Optional visual understanding for webpage content
Debugging Tools: Includes MCP Inspector and detailed error handling
Supports GitHub as an LLM provider through API key integration
Allows executing JavaScript code on webpages through the 'execute_js' operation
Supports Ollama as an LLM provider through API key integration
Supports OpenAI as an LLM provider through API key integration
Uses Python scripts for browser automation to perform various operations like capturing screenshots, retrieving HTML content, executing JavaScript, and getting console logs from webpages
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Browser Use Servertake a screenshot of the homepage at https://example.com"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Browser Use Server
A Model Context Protocol server for browser automation using Python scripts. For use with Cline
Features
Browser Operations
screenshot: Capture a screenshot of a webpage (full page or viewport)get_html: Retrieve the HTML content of a webpageexecute_js: Execute JavaScript on a webpageget_console_logs: Get console logs from a webpage
All operations support custom interaction steps (e.g., clicking elements, scrolling) after page load.
Related MCP server: Playwright MCP Server for Security
Prerequisites
(Optional but recommended) Install Xvfb for headless browser automation:
# Ubuntu/Debian
sudo apt-get install xvfb
# CentOS/RHEL
sudo yum install xorg-x11-server-Xvfb
# Arch Linux
sudo pacman -S xorg-server-xvfbXvfb (X Virtual Frame Buffer) creates a virtual display, allowing browser automation without detection as a bot. Learn more about Xvfb here.
Install Miniconda or Anaconda
Create a Conda environment:
conda create -n browser-use python=3.11
conda activate browser-use
pip install -r requirements.txtSet up LLM configuration:
The server supports multiple LLM providers. You can use any of the following API keys:
# Required: Set at least one of these API keys
export GLHF_API_KEY=your_api_key
export GROQ_API_KEY=your_api_key
export OPENAI_API_KEY=your_api_key
export OPENROUTER_API_KEY=your_api_key
export GITHUB_API_KEY=your_api_key
export DEEPSEEK_API_KEY=your_api_key
export GEMINI_API_KEY=your_api_key
export OLLAMA_API_KEY=your_api_key
# Optional: Override default configuration
export MODEL=your_preferred_model # Override the default model
export BASE_URL=your_custom_url # Override the default API endpoint
export USE_VISION=false # Enable/disable vision capabilities (default: false)The server will automatically use the first available API key it finds. You can optionally customize the model and base URL for any provider using the environment variables.
Installation
Installing via Smithery
To install Browser Use Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @ztobs/cline-browser-use-mcp --client claudeClone this repository to
/home/YOUR_HOME/Documents/Cline/directoryInstall dependencies:
npm installBuild the server:
npm run buildMCP Configuration
Add the following configuration to your Cline MCP settings:
"browser-use": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/home/YOUR_HOME/Documents/Cline/MCP/browser-use-server/build/index.js"
],
"env": {
// Required: Set at least one API key
"GLHF_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"GROQ_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"OPENAI_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"OPENROUTER_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"GITHUB_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"DEEPSEEK_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"GEMINI_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"OLLAMA_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
// Optional: Configuration overrides
"MODEL": "your_preferred_model",
"BASE_URL": "your_custom_url",
"USE_VISION": "false"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}Replace:
YOUR_HOMEwith your actual home directory nameyour_api_keywith your actual API keys
Usage
Run the server:
node build/index.jsThe server will be available on stdio and supports the following operations:
Screenshot
Parameters:
url: The webpage URL (required)
full_page: Whether to capture the full page or just the viewport (optional, default: false)
steps: Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (optional)
Get HTML
Parameters:
url: The webpage URL (required)
steps: Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (optional)
Execute JavaScript
Parameters:
url: The webpage URL (required)
script: JavaScript code to execute (required)
steps: Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (optional)
Get Console Logs
Parameters:
url: The webpage URL (required)
steps: Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (optional)
Example Cline Usage
Here are some example tasks you can accomplish using the browser-use server with Cline:
Modifying Web Page Elements during Development
To change the color of a heading on a page that requires authentication:
Change the colour of the headline with the text "Alle Foren im Überblick." to deep blue on https://localhost:3000/foren/ page
To check/see the page, use browser-use MCP server to:
Open https://localhost:3000/auth,
Login with ztobs:Password123,
Navigate to https://localhost:3000/foren/,
Accept cookies if required
hint: execute all browser actions in one command with multiple comma-separated stepsThis task demonstrates:
Multi-step browser automation using comma-separated steps
Authentication handling
Cookie acceptance
DOM manipulation
CSS styling changes
The server will execute these steps sequentially, handling any required interactions along the way.
Configuration
LLM Configuration
The server supports multiple LLM providers with their default configurations:
GLHF: Uses deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3 model
Ollama: Uses qwen2.5:32b-instruct-q4_K_M model with 32k context window
Groq: Uses deepseek-r1-distill-llama-70b model
OpenAI: Uses gpt-4o-mini model
Openrouter: Uses deepseek/deepseek-chat model
Github: Uses gpt-4o-mini model
DeepSeek: Uses deepseek-chat model
Gemini: Uses gemini-2.0-flash-exp model
You can override these defaults using environment variables:
MODEL: Set a custom model name for any providerBASE_URL: Set a custom API endpoint URL (if the provider supports it)
Vision Support
The server supports vision capabilities through the USE_VISION environment variable:
Set USE_VISION=true to enable vision capabilities for browser operations
Default is false to optimize performance when vision is not needed
Useful for tasks that require visual understanding of webpage content
Xvfb Support
The server automatically detects if Xvfb is installed and:
Uses xvfb-run when available, enabling better browser automation without bot detection
Falls back to direct execution when Xvfb is not installed
Sets RUNNING_UNDER_XVFB environment variable accordingly
Timeout
Default timeout is 5 minutes (300000 ms). Modify the TIMEOUT constant in build/index.js to change this.
Error Handling
The server provides detailed error messages for:
Python script execution failures
Browser operation timeouts
Invalid parameters
Debugging
Use the MCP Inspector for debugging:
npm run inspectorUses
License
MIT
Available Tools
4 toolsexecute_jsC
Execute JavaScript code on a webpage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to navigate to | |
| script | Yes | The JavaScript code to execute | |
| steps | No | Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (e.g., "click #submit, scroll down" or "Fill the login form and submit") |
TDQS
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 mentions execution but lacks details on permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., page modifications), error handling, or execution environment. This is inadequate for a tool that performs code execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing JavaScript on a webpage, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameters (url, script, steps). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but doesn't contradict it either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute JavaScript code') and target ('on a webpage'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_html, which also interact with webpages but for different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like get_html or screenshot, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does 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.
get_console_logsC
Get the console logs of a webpage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to navigate to | |
| steps | No | Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (e.g., "click #submit, scroll down" or "Fill the login form and submit") |
TDQS
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 states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires browser automation, what types of console logs are captured (e.g., errors, warnings), whether it's a read-only operation, or any limitations like timeouts or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with webpages and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., log format, error handling), behavioral constraints, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with two parameters and no structured safety hints, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('url' and 'steps'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of console logs or how steps interact with log capture. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('console logs of a webpage'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_js' or 'get_html', which might also interact with webpage content, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'execute_js' (which might execute JavaScript and potentially capture logs) or 'get_html' (which retrieves HTML content). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the webpage needs to be loaded first, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_htmlC
Get the HTML content of a webpage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to navigate to | |
| steps | No | Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (e.g., "click #submit, scroll down" or "Fill the login form and submit") |
TDQS
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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it follows redirects, handles authentication, respects rate limits, or returns errors. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 and efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 incomplete for a tool with two parameters and potential behavioral complexity. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., raw HTML, status codes), error handling, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 both parameters ('url' and 'steps') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the interaction between parameters or providing examples of 'steps' usage, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 a webpage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_js' or 'screenshot', but the core function is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'execute_js' or 'screenshot'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screenshotC
Take a screenshot of a webpage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to navigate to | |
| full_page | No | Whether to capture the full page or just the viewport | |
| steps | No | Comma-separated actions or sentences describing steps to take after page load (e.g., "click #submit, scroll down" or "Fill the login form and submit") |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It lacks details on permissions needed, potential rate limits, output format (e.g., image type), error handling, or whether it's a read-only or mutative operation, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving webpage interaction and screenshot capture), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like what the output returns (e.g., image data or file path), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameters (url, full_page, steps). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying webpage capture, which is redundant with the schema's details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Take') and resource ('screenshot of a webpage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_js or get_html by focusing on visual capture rather than code execution or HTML retrieval, 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.
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 get_html for content extraction or execute_js for interactive actions. The description implies usage for webpage capture but offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.
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.
4 tool updates
- First observed
execute_js - First observed
get_console_logs - First observed
get_html - First observed
screenshot
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute_js runs code, get_console_logs retrieves logs, get_html fetches content, and screenshot captures visual output. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., execute_js, get_console_logs, get_html, screenshot). The naming is predictable and readable throughout.
With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for browser automation, covering key operations like executing scripts, retrieving logs, getting content, and taking screenshots. Each tool earns its place without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers essential browser interactions for the domain, including execution, logging, content retrieval, and visualization. A minor gap exists in navigation or page manipulation tools (e.g., navigate, click), but core workflows are well-supported.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Provides cloud browser automation capabilities using Stagehand and Browserbase, enabling LLMs to i…
AI-powered browser automation — navigate, click, fill forms, and extract data from any website.
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
Stealth web automation for AI agents. Login, signup, navigate, screenshot.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables browser automation and web scraping through Playwright, supporting navigation, screenshots, element interaction, form filling, JavaScript execution, and content extraction.8-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables LLMs to perform browser automation tasks including web scraping, taking screenshots, and executing JavaScript using Playwright. It facilitates real-time interaction with web pages and the generation of automated test code.58MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to control a browser for web automation tasks like navigation, typing, clicking, and taking screenshots.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables browser automation using Playwright, including navigation, screenshots, clicking, form filling, and JavaScript execution.Apache 2.0
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/ztobs/cline-browser-use-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server