Vibe Test — Browser Testing Agent vs Camoufox MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Vibe Test — Browser Testing Agent and Camoufox 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 Vibe Test — Browser Testing Agent 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: configure, scan_codebase, get_context.

Explore Vibe Test — Browser Testing Agent Details

Choose Camoufox 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).
• Primary tools included: create_session, list_sessions, save_session.

Explore Camoufox MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Vibe Test — Browser Testing Agent Browser Automation	Camoufox MCP Browser Automation
Summary	Code-aware browser testing agent — 13 Playwright tools for AI code editors via MCP	Anti-detection browser automation with Camoufox - stealth Firefox for web scraping
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": {
    "vibe-test-browser-testing-agent": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "vibe-testing@latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

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

Related MCP Server Comparisons