miguelspizza

7 ms·

31.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
The side-panel browser agent is a good middle ground to this issue. The user is still there looking at the website via their own browser session, the AI just has access to the specific functionality which the website wants to expose to it.
32.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
> It's clear to me that the tech just isn't there yet. Totally agree. This was the thesis behind MCP-B (now WebMCP https://github.com/MiguelsPizza/WebMCP ) HN Post: https://news.ycombinator.com&#
33.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Sure they can inject clients, but that's really only beneficials for developers. doing it via browser extension means regular people can use it. > It's like an OpenAPI definition but for JS/MCP? Sortof. It's a true MC
34.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
I've thought more about this and I think the only way to make completely sure that sensitive data does not get leaked is by making sure it never makes it into the models context in the first place. The issue is even if the MCP-B extens
35.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Added a summary of what has been brought up here to the repo wiki. Let me know if I missed anything https://github.com/MiguelsPizza/WebMCP/wiki/Known-Security-I...
36.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Yea this is a really good idea, Maybe like a popup that say "hey x website has an MCP, do you trust it to connect?" I guess there would also need to be a way to "audit" a websites full tool list at connection time and th
37.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
I see your point. The MCP-B zero config nature from a user perspective is simultaneous it's biggest strength and weakness. You can think of it kind of like putting your Social Security number into a website. You are putting a bunch of
38.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Ah I see. Yes this is a concern, but this issue is actually not unique to MCP-B and is just a generally issue with agentic workflows that rely on a dynamic toolset from 3p vendors. (which any MCP server local or remote has the ability to be
39.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
ah this is a great point, I will add it to the road map
40.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Looks like Claude put me down as a co-author with my real name (Alex Nahas) instead of my GitHub handle (MiguelsPizza)
41.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Again, that's up to the website owner. They can give the model anywhere from no access to full access to the client side api. > The agent should be treated as an untrusted user in your client, given restricted privileges scoped to o
42.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Not sure I understand. The model has no more access than the user does. proper security implementation still lies with the website owner
43.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Ah maybe I should make that more clear. The web app is an example of a MCP-B server and the extension is a client. When you visit MCP-b.ai with the extension, it's tools will register
44.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Np thanks for reading! The difference is with MCP-B you don't have to integrate or maintain any AI chat functionality yourself. It's a protocol which allows the user to bring their own model to interact with the tools on your webs
45.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Yes it was mostly AI generated. I'm much more of a dev than a writer/marketer. Hopefully if this gains some traction I can pay someone to clean it up
46.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
That was everyone's first thought when MCP came out. Turns out it doesn't work too well since there is generally too many tools. People are doing interesting work in this space though
47.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Sorry this is in reference to the Playwright MCP server which gives a model access to screen shots of the browser and Playwright API's. MCP-B doesn't do any DOM parsing. It exchanges data purely over browser events.
48.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Yea, I am planning a dev build of MCP-B which has access to user scripts apis. So technically you could `vibe code` and inject an MCP server into the target webpage
49.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Ah yea I'll fix that. Nice catch
50.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
No there is built in tool de-duping. I'm not sure how to handle domains with different url states though. Like you said there are some edge cases where two tabs of the same website expose different tool sets or have tools of the same n
51.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Ah no, first time seeing this. How were you interacting with the website server? Via extension or some way else?
52.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
I think with AI tools you can pretty confidently build out an MCP server for your existing website. I plan to have good LLM docs for this very purpose. For react in particular, lots of the form ecosystem (react hook form) can be directly po
53.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Thanks! I'd be happy to help onboard. Let me know!
54.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
I did some git history re-visioning when I closed sourced the extension for a bit. So these are not super accurate. Claude code did write about 85% of the code though.
55.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Cool, I'll check it out! I'll need to look a bit more, but at a glance, MCP-B is more putting the onus of browser automation (i.e. how the agent will interact with the web page) on the website owner. They get to expose exactly the
56.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Sure. Although I'd assume if the website owner went through the hassle of creating a MCP server for their website, they would probably want to be discovered
57.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Ok it's open source now
58.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
The extension should be open source. I had it as a private submodule until today. Let me figure out my it's not showing up and get back to you. The extension itself is a MCP server which can be connected to by other extension over cr
59.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
data-test-id attributes and other attributes are hardcoded and need to be know by the automator at run time. MCP-B clients request what they can call at injection time and the server responds with standard MCP tools. (functions LLM's c
60.
by miguelspizza 1y ago
Fixed. Nice catch

More ›