Camoufox MCP vs Arachne MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Camoufox MCP and Arachne 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?

C

Choose Camoufox MCP when:

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

Explore Camoufox MCP Details

Choose Arachne MCP when:

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

Explore Arachne MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C Camoufox MCP Search & Data Extraction	Arachne MCP Search & Data Extraction
Summary	Anti-detection browser automation with Camoufox - stealth Firefox for web scraping	Web scraping, browser automation, vision, OCR, audio, RAG — 9 MCP tools via Arachne API
Category & Scope	Search & Data Extraction	Search & Data Extraction

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

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "arachne-mcp-2": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "arachne-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons