Agent Browser vs Groundhog MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Agent Browser and Groundhog 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?

A

Choose Agent Browser when:

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

Explore Agent Browser Details

Choose Groundhog MCP when:

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

Explore Groundhog MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	A Agent Browser Developer Tools	Groundhog MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Self-hosted Chrome for AI agents, with a live noVNC view a human can take over.	Safe, self-hosted web grounding for AI agents and crawlers over a stealth browser
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
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": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "aether-browser"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "groundhog-mcp": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "groundhog-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons