layout-doctor-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to layout-doctor-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables CSS layout verification and debugging by extracting deterministic, diffable rendered layout from a browser, allowing agents to inspect, explain, and diff CSS changes.200 npm2MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI-assisted visual regression testing by capturing baselines, comparing screenshots, and using AI to judge whether visual differences are bugs or acceptable changes.4-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI-driven UI inspection and optimization by scanning websites with configurable viewports, capturing screenshots, running deterministic accessibility and layout checks, and generating prioritized reports with fix prompts.2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables HTML page analysis, verification, and automated correction using Playwright for rendering and Mistral AI for visual inspection. Captures screenshots, analyzes renders against specifications, and generates fixes for HTML issues.2-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to see, analyze, and visually verify web page changes through pixel-perfect diffing, theme extraction, layout analysis, and interactive element detection.1 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceVerification browser for coding agents. Headless-by-default WebKit windows with DOM eval, screenshots, pixel-diff with a real match percentage and heatmap, and live hand-off to a human. One static binary, no Chromium.80AGPL 3.0
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or incorrect selection. The tool uniquely targets layout checking with a clear and comprehensive role. Disambiguation is trivially perfect.
The single tool name 'layout_check' follows a clear verb-noun pattern (check the layout) and accurately describes its function. Since there is no other tool to compare patterns, the consistency is essentially unqualified, but a perfect 5 would require a larger set. A 4 reflects the lack of pattern evidence rather than any inconsistency.
The server has only one tool, which per the rubric is considered too few for a typical tool server. While the tool itself is comprehensive and covers many layout-checks, the extreme minimalism limits workflow flexibility and integration. This falls into the 'too few' category rather than the borderline 1-2 range.
The tool covers a wide range of layout-detection features (overlap, overflow, truncation, horizontal scroll, unresolved references, id duplication, invisible text), and explicitly excludes unrelated areas like accessibility and design evaluation. For its stated purpose of layout diagnostics, the surface is remarkably complete. However, the lack of any companion tools (e.g., to fix issues or compare against a baseline) creates a minor gap in a full workflow, so it doesn't earn a perfect 5.