Skip to main content
Glama
carlosphyll

phyll

by carlosphyll
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to phyll

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • UI Reviewer MCP

      codepawl
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP-first UI/UX review layer for AI-generated frontends. Enables reviewing web pages via URL, capturing screenshots, extracting layout metrics, and generating structured repair plans for agents.
      22 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • QualityMax QA MCP by Quality-Max

      QualityMax QA MCPofficial

      Quality-Max
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to independently verify web changes by scanning pages, inspecting UI structure, generating Playwright reproductions, and executing tests with structured QA evidence.
      4
      66 npm
      2
      MIT

    • convey

      bitovi
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables designing, modifying, and bug reporting in web apps, sending changes to coding agents via MCP.
      4 npm
      46
      MIT

    • web-ui-tester

      hofmeister
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to rapidly drive and inspect real web pages through persistent browser sessions, using accessibility-tree snapshots and DevTools-grade diagnostics to identify and diagnose issues.
      23
      -
    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

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 18 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools map cleanly to distinct phases of the review workflow, such as starting, interacting, capturing evidence, and finishing. The only mild overlap is among capture, screenshot, and probe, but their descriptions clarify when each should be used.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The majority of tools use short lowercase imperative verbs like click, fill, open, and resize, which is readable and predictable. There are minor deviations such as account as a noun and the underscored compounds start_review and finish_review, but the overall style remains consistent.

    Tool Count4/5

    Eighteen tools is slightly above the ideal range, but the count is justified by the breadth of browser interactions and review steps the server supports. Each tool covers a distinct capability and none feel redundant.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the full review lifecycle: start, navigate, interact, capture evidence, measure, and finish, plus account and upgrade support. Minor gaps like no explicit cancel-review or previous-report listing exist, but they do not block the core workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources