Skip to main content
Glama
LS-SIEM-LLP

qa-probe

Official
by LS-SIEM-LLP
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to qa-probe

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • ProxyPI

      AlexisLspk
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Self-healing API proxy MCP that sends REST requests, diagnoses failures using Claude, patches requests, and retries. Successful fixes are remembered for instant reuse.
      4
      6 npm
      1
      MIT

    • BackendMax

      rish-e
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      AI-powered backend diagnostics MCP server that statically analyzes frontend and backend code to catch cross-boundary bugs, contract drift, missing validation, security gaps, and performance anti-patterns before deployment.
      41
      3
      MIT

    • AIS Revizor

      bswvladimir-beep
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP server that gives AI coding agents runtime visibility and AI-managed debug logging. It replaces blind print() debugging by turning runtime execution into causal chains, allowing agents to instantly locate bugs by finding missing .success events in Python and TypeScript code. Single binary with MCP, CLI, and HTTP interfaces.
      -

    • api-test-mcp

      thisis-najeeb
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to call real API endpoints and verify responses against OpenAPI specs, supporting contract testing, auth presets, spec diffing, and health checks.
      8
      49 npm
      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

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct aspect of QA probing: explaining failures, impact analysis, dependency graphs, reports, feedback labeling, live probing, full analysis runs, and fix suggestions. No two tools overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools share the 'qa_probe_' prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., explain_failure, get_blast_radius). The minor deviation of 'label' as a single verb is still semantically clear and consistent with the pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain—covering analysis, probing, reporting, labeling, and fixes—without being too sparse or overwhelming.

    Completeness5/5

    The tools cover the full workflow: triggering analysis, probing live endpoints, retrieving reports and graphs, explaining failures, assessing impact, suggesting fixes, and recording feedback. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources