Skip to main content
Glama
Coding-Crashkurse

e2e-verifier

by Coding-Crashkurse
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to e2e-verifier

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • vouch

      hamza-paracha
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to verify application changes by running browser workflows, executing independent state assertions, and producing replayable evidence.
      2 npm
      MIT
    • ProdPoke MCP Server by prodpoke

      ProdPoke MCP Serverofficial

      prodpoke
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI to perform real-browser QA testing on websites via Playwright, finding bugs, accessibility, SEO, and performance issues through natural language conversations.
      1
      MIT
    • QualityMax QA MCP by Quality-Max

      QualityMax QA MCPofficial

      Quality-Max
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to independently verify web changes by scanning pages, inspecting UI structure, generating Playwright reproductions, and executing tests with structured QA evidence.
      4
      104 npm
      3
      MIT

    • flowcheck

      kadessovb02
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to validate web pages and run repeatable JSON browser scenarios, returning pass/fail results with local Playwright evidence such as screenshots, traces, and JUnit XML.
      26 npm
      1
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 18 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are grouped into clear clusters: target probing, session control, schema/validation, ticket/scenario runs, and run artifacts. The only real ambiguity is discover_elements vs session_inspect, which perform nearly the same ARIA snapshot/target query and differ only by whether an interactive session is already open; probe_target and session_open also both open a URL but have different intent.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow clear snake_case verb_noun names (validate_ticket, run_ticket, list_runs, delete_run), and the session_* prefix makes that cluster immediately recognizable. It is not completely uniform because session tools invert the order (session_open instead of open_session) and server_info is a noun_noun outlier, but the pattern is still predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    18 tools is on the heavier side, but each one maps to a distinct stage of the workflow: one-off probing, session lifecycle, ticket/scenario execution, and artifact retrieval. The count is slightly above the ideal range but feels justified by the domain rather than bloated.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: probe/open, inspect/discover targets, act/assert, annotate/screenshot, close session, run tickets/scenarios, fetch runs/artifacts, and delete. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for a bug-verification server.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources