Limetest es el framework de pruebas integral más ligero con capacidades de IA, compatible con tus flujos de trabajo de CI. Define tus casos de prueba en lenguaje natural y deja que la IA se encargue de la ejecución.
Optimizado para IA : defina sus casos de prueba en un lenguaje sencillo y deje que la IA los ejecute de principio a fin.
Ligero y eficiente : aprovecha la instantánea de Playwright en lugar del análisis de píxeles para una ejecución más rápida y confiable.
Capacidades de visión : vuelve al modo de visión cuando el modo instantánea falla durante escenarios de prueba más sofisticados.
npm install @limetest/limetest
npx playwright installlimtest lanzará el navegador Chrome con el nuevo perfil, ubicado en
- `%USERPROFILE%\AppData\Local\ms-limetest\mcp-chrome-profile` on Windows
- `~/Library/Caches/ms-limetest/mcp-chrome-profile` on macOS
- `~/.cache/ms-limetest/mcp-chrome-profile` on LinuxRelated MCP server: Playwright MCP
Utilice --headless para ejecutar pruebas sin cabeza en flujos de trabajo de CI
npx limetest examplehttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b801f239-dc66-4b3b-bcf2-42e2a9a68721
Un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) impulsado por Playwright que agiliza las pruebas de extremo a extremo para su cliente MCP.
Pruebas automatizadas planificadas y ejecutadas por LLM
Después de clonar este repositorio, cree y agregue el servidor MCP E2E a su cliente MCP de la siguiente manera: Tenga en cuenta que necesita una clave API de OpenAI para ejecutar este servidor MCP en modo de extremo a extremo.
npm install @limetest/mcp
npx playwright installEntonces:
{
"mcpServers": {
"limetest": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"npx @limetest/mcp",
"--api-key=<your openai api key>"
]
}
}
}Toda la información de inicio de sesión se almacenará en ese perfil, puedes eliminarla entre sesiones si deseas borrar el estado fuera de línea.
Limetest se basa en Playwright MCP de Microsoft y está optimizado para pruebas automatizadas de extremo a extremo como plataforma independiente. Este proyecto se distribuye bajo la licencia Apache 2.0.
Run an end to end test suit in the browser
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testDefinition | Yes | The test case definition |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'run' which implies execution, but doesn't describe what happens during the test (e.g., browser behavior, timeouts, outputs, or side effects). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, the typo 'suit' (likely meant 'suite') slightly detracts from clarity, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that executes tests. It doesn't explain what 'run' entails (e.g., whether it returns results, logs, or errors), leaving the agent without key operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'testDefinition' documented as 'The test case definition'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run an end to end test suit in the browser' clearly states the action (run) and target (end to end test suit in the browser). It's specific enough to understand the tool's function, though 'test suit' appears to be a typo (likely 'test suite'). Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context for its application. It merely states what the tool does without indicating scenarios or constraints for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0browser_endtoendScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'browser_endtoend' follows a clear snake_case pattern.
One tool is too few for a server's purpose, as it severely limits functionality and suggests an incomplete or trivial implementation. This is a borderline case leaning toward inadequacy.
The server is severely incomplete; with only a single end-to-end test tool, there are obvious gaps in functionality for any meaningful domain, such as setup, teardown, or other testing operations.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP server for Mint — AI-powered QA that runs your app in a real browser on every PR.
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
