F
licenseB
qualityB
maintenanceMCP server for AI-powered QA analysis. It enables analyzing test failures, identifying root causes, suggesting fixes, classifying defects, detecting flaky tests, and generating test cases and bug reports.
10
-
mcp-qa-toolbox
by fercarballo
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-qa-toolbox
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP-compliant server that enables the execution of pytest test suites and the storage of results into a QA platform database. It allows AI models to trigger test runs, track execution progress, and retrieve historical test data through specialized tool interfaces.1-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that reads test reports and provides regression analysis tools for comparing runs, identifying regressions, fixes, and persistent failures.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that aggregates test failures, cross-references flakiness history, and outputs a release readiness verdict.635 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceKeyless, local MCP server bringing ISTQB / OWASP / IEEE / ISO / EU AI Act QA standards into your AI client. Standards-grounded retrieval, deterministic QA effort estimation, automated QA document quality review (0-100 rubric), and JUnit/CSV test-results flakiness analysis.6203 PyPI6Apache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAutonomous QA testing MCP server that analyzes, fixes, and learns from test failures. Integrates with IDE and Slack to provide cause and fix in plain language.317 npmMIT
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: flakiness_report analyzes multiple runs for flaky tests, parse_junit details a single run, and quality_gate makes a pass/fail decision. Descriptions are detailed and avoid overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names use snake_case but lack a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'flakiness_report' and 'quality_gate' are noun_noun, while 'parse_junit' is verb_noun. This inconsistency could confuse agents expecting uniform conventions.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused JUnit analysis toolbox. Each tool earns its place, covering core needs without redundancy or excess.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full workflow: parsing a single report, comparing multiple reports for flakiness, and making a decision based on thresholds. No obvious gaps remain for the stated purpose.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues