Agent Browser vs SHAFT MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Agent Browser and SHAFT MCP MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose Agent Browser when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Agent Browser Details

Choose SHAFT MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore SHAFT MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Agent Browser Browser Automation	SHAFT MCP Browser Automation
Summary	MCP server for browser automation via Vercel's agent-browser CLI	SHAFT browser automation, capture, and offline deterministic failure diagnosis
Category & Scope	Browser Automation	Browser Automation
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "agent-browser-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "agent-browser-2"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "shaft-mcp-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "shaft-mcp-2"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons