Skip to main content
Glama
WtecHtec

qa-workflow

by WtecHtec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to qa-workflow

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • claude-bridge-mcp

      millanrp25-dot
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that lets ChatGPT or any MCP client securely delegate coding tasks to a local Claude Code instance, with git checkpointing, approval gates, and structured results. Supports code review, test running, and rollback via simple tool calls.
      4 npm
      MIT

    • cc-agent

      Gonzih
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that spawns autonomous Claude Code agents in GitHub repos, enabling task delegation with persistent state, multi-step workflows, and job monitoring.
      47
      187 npm
      2
      Apache 2.0

    • okffs

      neturely
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that lets Claude Code manage GitHub issues, branches, and pull requests through natural language, automating the full development workflow from planning to closing.
      523 npm
      2
      MIT

    • mcp-flow

      remimenguy
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A safe, local MCP server that lets Claude drive a controlled software-development loop (inspect, read, plan, patch, apply, check, analyze, fix, summarize) on a project, using deterministic tools and real diffs/test runs.
      10
      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

    D1.7/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tool names suggest distinct actions: completing a bug, checking queue status, and waiting for a bug report. Without descriptions, there is slight ambiguity between 'complete_bug' and 'wait_for_bug_report' but they appear to target different stages.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern ('complete_bug', 'get_queue_status'), but 'wait_for_bug_report' uses a multi-word verb phrase, breaking consistency. The pattern is mostly predictable but not uniform.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the low end but could be appropriate for a highly focused workflow (e.g., a queue-based bug system). It earns its place if the domain is narrow, but feels slightly thin for a general QA workflow.

    Completeness2/5

    The surface lacks basic operations like creating, listing, or updating bugs, which are common in QA workflows. The set feels incomplete, covering only end actions and status checks.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources