Skip to main content
Glama
hubertgajewski

playwright-report-mcp

by hubertgajewski
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_tests

List all Playwright tests with their spec file and tags to review test inventory without executing them.

Instructions

List all tests with their spec file and tags without running them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envNoEnvironment variable overrides for the Playwright child process. Each key must be listed in PW_ALLOWED_ENV. Dangerous names (NODE_*, NPM_CONFIG_*, PATH, proxies, secrets) are always rejected. Values are never echoed in get_run_status.
tagNoFilter by tag, e.g. @smoke
workingDirectoryNoPlaywright project directory. Absolute or relative to the MCP server launch directory. Defaults to ".". Must be under PW_ALLOWED_DIRS.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / env
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Environment variable overrides for the Playwright child process. Each key must be listed in PW_ALLOWED_ENV. Dangerous names (NODE_*, NPM_CONFIG_*, PATH, proxies, secrets) are always rejected. Values are never echoed in get_run_status.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.3.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv3.2.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does state the key non-execution behavior, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not clarify whether listing involves spawning a Playwright child process, how env overrides affect listing, or what happens if no tests match; these are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, the result payload, and the key safety-relevant distinction ('without running them') efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys return content (spec file and tags) and the non-execution guarantee. It doesn't describe output formatting or pagination, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's full parameter coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the tag, env, and workingDirectory parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('tests'), and the information returned ('spec file and tags'). The phrase 'without running them' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_tests, so an agent can immediately tell this is a discovery, not an execution, tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without running them' gives clear contextual guidance: use this when you need test discovery/inventory rather than execution. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for typical selection between list_tests and run_tests.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools