Skip to main content
Glama
HusneShabbir

Automation Coverage MCP

by HusneShabbir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Automation Coverage MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • testmcp

      r-marques
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Wraps existing test frameworks (Jest, Vitest, Pytest) and exposes structured, LLM-optimized results via MCP tools with progressive disclosure and diff-aware execution.
      11
      1
      -

    • test-intel-mcp

      barissozudogru
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Test coverage intelligence MCP server for TypeScript and JavaScript projects. Analyzes coverage reports to find untested functions, computes cyclomatic complexity, and suggests test cases locally.
      4
      36 npm
      3
      MIT

    • Chisel

      IronAdamant
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for test impact analysis and code intelligence. Maps tests to code and git history to determine impacted tests, risk scores, and ownership for AI coding agents.
      3
      MIT

    • Test Analyzer MCP Server

      giri-jeedigunta
      F
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables comprehensive analysis of JavaScript/TypeScript project testing setups by detecting frameworks like Jest, Vitest, and Cypress, analyzing test coverage metrics, and generating actionable recommendations for improving test quality. Provides detailed insights into test structure, dependencies, and coverage thresholds with visual feedback.
      3
      1
      -
    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 10 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools map to distinct pipeline phases: discovery, diff analysis, coverage extraction, gap intersection, inventory, recommendation, and brief generation. The main ambiguity is among generate_test_plan, generate_layer_brief, and generate_playwright_brief, but their descriptions clarify scope.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb-first pattern such as list_layers, discover_packages, analyze_changes, and generate_test_plan. The exception is coverage_gaps, a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, which creates a minor inconsistency.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: discovery, analysis, coverage gap detection, planning, and brief generation. Each tool corresponds to a meaningful step in the workflow, and none feel redundant.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full pipeline from listing layers and discovering packages, through analyzing changes and coverage gaps, to recommending and generating test plans and layer-specific briefs. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources