Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
k11 API Functional QA

k11 API Functional QA

Official
by K11-Software-Solutions
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to k11 API Functional QA

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • api-testing-agent

      SHREELASYABEZAWADA
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible clients to discover API endpoints from OpenAPI/Swagger specs, send HTTP requests, validate responses, and analyze status codes for automated API testing.
      1
      -

    • Swagger Testcase MCP

      eyaushev
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for API test case generation from Swagger/OpenAPI specs. Parses Swagger 2.0 and OpenAPI 3.x, generates test cases across 8 categories (positive, negative, boundary, auth, security, idempotency, pagination, business logic), and exports to Postman, TestRail, Allure, k6, pytest, Gherkin, and CSV. Supports internal corporate APIs with auth headers. Auto-saves export files to your working di
      10
      10 npm
      2
      MIT

    • mcp-eval-runner

      dbsectrainer
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables running YAML-defined test suites against MCP servers and agent workflows, with live or simulated execution, assertions, and regression reporting.
      293 npm
      MIT

    • horus

      xucailiang
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables agent-planned, human-reviewed HTTP API testing through MCP, turning OpenAPI/Swagger definitions and requirements into executable Hurl/k6 test plans. Supports plan review, execution, cleanup, and reports for coding agents such as Codex and Claude Code.
      MIT
    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

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools occupy clearly distinct steps of the QA workflow: discovery (list_environments), exploration (call_api), authoring (draft_flow, generate_negative_tests, write_flow), execution (run_flows), data (query_db) and export (export_pytest). The only soft overlap is between draft_flow (produces a skeleton) and write_flow (persists it), which an agent could momentarily conflate since both concern flow files. Descriptions largely resolve this by explaining the pipeline order.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Every tool follows the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_environments, draft_flow, write_flow, run_flows, call_api, query_db, export_pytest), with generate_negative_tests as the only longer variant and still the same convention. Verb choice maps predictably to action type (list/draft/generate/write/run/call/query/export). No camelCase or stylistic mixing.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each one maps to a discrete step in the API-QA lifecycle, so nothing feels padded. No redundant aliases or duplicate execution paths exist.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full authoring-to-execution loop plus DB access and a pytest escape hatch, which is strong lifecycle coverage. The gap is around existing flows: there is no tool to read, edit, or delete a saved flow (write_flow refuses to overwrite), so revising an existing test requires external file access. Minor but real dead end for iterating on a failing flow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Resources