playwright-fixer-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to playwright-fixer-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceSelf-healing browser automation MCP server integrating Playwright with LLM-assisted locator repair.61MIT- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceSelf-healing test automation MCP server that diagnoses and fixes issues in mobile and web apps, including a one-command vibe-check to prioritize broken functionality.2362 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAutonomous QA testing MCP server that analyzes, fixes, and learns from test failures. Integrates with IDE and Slack to provide cause and fix in plain language.3112 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for end-to-end QA automation: generates test scenarios, discovers Playwright locators, creates TypeScript test code, executes tests, and creates GitHub issues for failures.611 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that unpacks and structures Playwright trace.zip archives so AI agents can perform root-cause analysis on CI failures, with 16 focused tools for inspection, DOM/UI analysis, root-cause analysis, and performance analysis.1944 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAI-powered E2E testing MCP server. Point at a URL — AI generates test scenarios, runs Playwright tests, and self-heals failures automatically. Works on Canvas and Flutter Web apps.7MIT
TDQS
Scored across 12 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: running tests, analyzing failures, validating fixes, reading specs, resolving tags, retrieving artifacts, and managing rules. Even the three 'get_*' tools (workflow, locator rules, tag run rule) are unique and well-separated by their descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., analyze_and_fix_selector, run_test_and_analyze_failure, resolve_spec_by_tag). The verbs vary appropriately, but the naming scheme is uniform and predictable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a distinct step in the Playwright fixing workflow, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range, feeling neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage for the intended workflow: resolving/reading specs, running tests, collecting artifacts, analyzing and fixing selectors, validating changes, and proposing rule evolution. There are no obvious dead ends, and the flow from failure to fix is complete.