Skip to main content
Glama
giri-jeedigunta

Test Analyzer MCP Server

by giri-jeedigunta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Test Analyzer MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • vitest-migrator-mcp

      Manvi1203
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables automated migration of JavaScript/TypeScript packages from legacy test runners like Karma, Webpack, and Mocha to Vitest, including AST codemods, multi-project test scaffolding, and self-learning diagnostics for resolving runtime errors.
      7
      -

    • butter-code-health

      CodingButter
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to analyze code health in TypeScript/JavaScript projects, providing tools to run analysis, start a dashboard, and get summaries.
      7 npm
      3
      MIT

    • Frontend Code Analysis MCP

      cmc12138
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Analyzes frontend project code (React, Vue, Angular) and converts it into AI-understandable flow diagrams and object structures. Provides tools for code analysis, variable/function/component inspection, and project structure insights.
      4 npm
      MIT

    • Ultra Debugger

      alfi-j
      -
      license
      B
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Enables comprehensive JavaScript code analysis and debugging using ESLint and custom pattern matching. Identifies syntax errors, potential bugs, code quality issues, and provides actionable fix suggestions for single files or entire projects.
      4
      -
    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

    C2.9/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. 'analyze_test_setup' and 'get_test_summary' both provide analysis of test setups, with the summary tool potentially duplicating aspects of the setup analysis. However, 'check_coverage' is clearly distinct in focusing on coverage metrics, and descriptions help differentiate the overlapping tools to some extent.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming follows a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern (analyze_test_setup, check_coverage, get_test_summary), with all tools using snake_case. There is a minor deviation in verb choice ('analyze', 'check', 'get'), but the pattern remains readable and predictable across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of test analysis. A typical test analysis domain would benefit from more operations, such as running tests, generating reports, or handling specific test frameworks. The limited count suggests incomplete coverage of potential agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for test analysis. Missing operations include running tests, debugging failures, managing test data, or integrating with CI/CD. The tools focus only on setup analysis, coverage checking, and summarization, leaving out core actions that agents would need for comprehensive test handling.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources