Browsegrab vs Mcp Server Browser

In-depth architectural comparison of the Browsegrab and Mcp Server Browser 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?

B

Choose Browsegrab 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 Browsegrab Details

Choose Mcp Server 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).
• Primary tools included: Browser automation via Puppeteer, Support for local browser control, Support for remote browser connections.

Explore Mcp Server Browser Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	B Browsegrab Browser Automation	Mcp Server Browser agent-infra Browser Automation
Summary	Token-efficient browser agent for local LLMs. Playwright + accessibility tree + MarkGrab.	Browser automation capabilities using Puppeteer, both support local and remote browser connection.
Category & Scope	Browser Automation	Browser Automation

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": {
    "browsegrab": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "browsegrab"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "agent-infra-mcp-server-browser": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@agent-tars/cli@latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons