Playwright Tools for MCP(github.com) |
Playwright Tools for MCP(github.com) |
I just leave an instruction in CLAUDE.md to validate changes with Playwright. It automatically starts a dev server (wrote a little MCP server to do that), navigates to the page with the changes it just made, and validates that its changes worked. If there is anything unexpected, it self-corrects.
It's like working with a really great mid-level engineer.
What a time to be alive.
However, even with that, it will quickly exhaust the model context if you navigate to something like Gmail. I just verified this with cursor.
I've been playing around with a much better textual representation of the page that's much more compact:
https://github.com/lxe/chrome-mcp/blob/master/src/runtime-te...
This uses your own chrome session and doesn't require a huge context size.
I might refactor this to use the aria interface available to the CDP, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
I don’t understand the hate against MCP. It is truly exciting to see the Cambrian explosion of “connectors” coming out.
This is going to be the “App Store” for models in a way that OpenAI’s custom GPTs never was.
The Microsoft one seems simpler, whereas the other one has more tools.
Note also, there's a Fetch-MCP which is playwright based, supports batch. Would be interesting to compare. https://github.com/jae-jae/fetch-mcp https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43419713 (64 points, 6 days ago, 14 comments)
The issue I'm noticing with puppeteer is that it isn't always successful to immediately get the right javascript to complete a simple task such as accepting a cookie consent banner, for example.
Vscode comes with a built in MCP client ?
I'm more in the camp of using claude computer-use/openai cua. I think they work better for most things, especially if you don't interact with hidden/obscured elements.
If you're interested in comparing these different services, you can try HyperPilot by Hyperbrowser at https://pilot.hyperbrowser.ai .
Disclaimer: I worked on Hyperpilot so I might be a bit biased.
It's great, no worry. Besides very minor things like mobile safari bugs (which you can't test on Macos safari neither, you need a real device or browser stack) it's perfect.
A US-based dev directing Claude Code has like 3x output.
So the biz is spending 125 + AI costs, but saving 250/hr.
An individual dev might feel like a superhuman compared to those not using Claude Code. Could even earn them a substantial promotion.
Either way, seems to net out.
I've been trying to figure this out, and I don't think it's malicious, but it's just a matter of incentives. Anthropic devs are certainly not paying retail prices for Claude usage, so their benchmark (or just intuition) of efficiency is probably much different than the average user. Without that hard constraint the incentive just isn't there for them to squeeze out a few more pennies, and it ends up way more expensive than stuff like Cline or Cursor.