Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QualityMax QA MCP

QualityMax QA MCP

Official
by Quality-Max
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Run Playwright Test

run_playwright_test
Destructive

Execute supplied local Playwright code or a local test file. This is a code-execution and artifact-writing boundary: qmax-mcp first requires an MCP human-approval elicitation bound to the exact test digest.

Instructions

Execute supplied local Playwright code or a local test file. This is a code-execution and artifact-writing boundary: qmax-mcp first requires an MCP human-approval elicitation bound to the exact test digest. The runner may make outbound network requests requested by the test.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "run_playwright_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNo
headedNo
baseUrlNo
browserNo
testPathNo
timeoutMsNo
allowedEnvNo
wallClockTimeoutMsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allowedEnv / additionalProperties / maxLength
      Added value: +8192
    • addedInput schema / properties / allowedEnv / propertyNames / maxLength
      Added value: +128
  2. First observedv0.4.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: an MCP human-approval step tied to the exact test digest, artifact-writing behavior, and the possibility of outbound network requests. This meaningfully clarifies the risk profile without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each pulling weight: the first states the action, the second flags the approval boundary, and the third discloses network behavior. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a high-complexity tool with 8 parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions. The description covers execution intent and risk but omits parameter semantics and any indication of return values or artifacts, leaving important gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to code and testPath via 'supplied local Playwright code or a local test file.' The other six parameters — headed, baseUrl, browser, timeoutMs, allowedEnv, and wallClockTimeoutMs — receive no elaboration, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for most inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Execute supplied local Playwright code or a local test file.' It further labels the tool as a 'code-execution and artifact-writing boundary,' which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like scan_url and inspect_page and from generation-focused generate_playwright_repro.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for running user-supplied Playwright code or test files, but it never states when to prefer this over the sibling tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer selection criteria from tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools