Skip to main content
Glama
fercarballo

mcp-qa-toolbox

by fercarballo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-qa-toolbox

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • QA Copilot AI

      Sham-coder16
      F
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP 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 Pytest Server

      SilenceWuJ
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An 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
      -

    • qai-consultant-mcp

      gvasile29
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Keyless, 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.
      6
      265 PyPI
      4
      Apache 2.0
    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

    A4.5/5.0

    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

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources