Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BojanKovachki

Recovery Probe

by BojanKovachki
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Recovery Probe

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • mcp-chaos-rig

      Typewise
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A local MCP server that breaks on demand, allowing you to test your client against auth failures, disappearing tools, flaky responses, and token expiry from a web UI.
      7 npm
      10
      MIT

    • Momus-MCP

      AraneaDev
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A local-first, deterministic, read-only MCP server that audits test suites for false-green tests, tautological assertions, and mock-contract drift, ensuring tests truly validate production code. It provides tools to detect test fidelity issues, verify mock drift, and synthesize strict mock contracts.
      MIT

    • MCP Failure Lab

      cloudlabworks
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables reproducible testing of MCP client recovery behavior by injecting deterministic tool-call faults such as errors, delays, malformed results, and disconnects through a single probe tool.
      255 npm
      MIT

    • VisualQ MCP Server

      abecms
      A
      license
      C
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables running visual regression tests, polling results, and reading structured failure reports via MCP clients like Cursor or Claude Desktop.
      22
      9 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 10 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target clearly distinct steps in the recovery-testing workflow, and the start/set/stop network-fault trio is especially clear. There is some overlap between check_read_recovery and run_recovery_probe (which can run a generic check), and between compare_reports and verify_change, though the descriptions mostly disambiguate them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Almost all tools use a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern, and the fault lifecycle tools are consistently named. The main deviation is network_fault_summary, which is noun-first rather than verb-led, but the set remains readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Ten tools is well-scoped for a recovery probing server covering fault injection, endpoint discovery, recovery checks, static suspect scanning, report comparison, verification, and a generic command runner. Each tool appears to earn its place without an excessive surface.

    Completeness4/5

    The network-fault lifecycle, recovery check, suspect discovery, report comparison, and change verification workflows are well covered. Minor gaps remain around directly creating or managing the plan file used by verify_change and listing or cleaning up reports, though the generic run_recovery_probe tool helps cover other commands.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources