Limetestは、CIワークフローで実行できるAI機能を備えた、最も軽量なエンドツーエンドのテストフレームワークです。テストケースを自然言語で定義し、AIに実行を任せましょう。
AI 向けに最適化: テスト ケースをわかりやすい言語で定義し、AI にエンドツーエンドで実行させます。
軽量かつ効率的: ピクセル分析の代わりに Playwright スナップショットを活用して、より高速で信頼性の高い実行を実現します。
ビジョン機能: より高度なテスト シナリオ中にスナップショット モードが失敗した場合は、ビジョン モードにフォールバックします。
npm install @limetest/limetest
npx playwright installlimtestは、新しいプロファイルでChromeブラウザを起動します。
- `%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
CI ワークフローでヘッドレスでテストを実行するには --headless を使用します。
npx limetest examplehttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b801f239-dc66-4b3b-bcf2-42e2a9a68721
Playwrightを搭載したモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバーは、MCP クライアントのエンドツーエンドのテストを効率化します。
LLMによって計画され実行される自動テスト
このリポジトリのクローンを作成した後、次のように E2E MCP サーバーをビルドして MCP クライアントに追加します。この MCP サーバーをエンドツーエンド モードで実行するには、OpenAI API キーが必要であることに注意してください。
npm install @limetest/mcp
npx playwright installそれから：
{
"mcpServers": {
"limetest": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"npx @limetest/mcp",
"--api-key=<your openai api key>"
]
}
}
}ログインしたすべての情報はそのプロファイルに保存されます。オフライン状態をクリアしたい場合は、セッション間でそれを削除できます。
LimetestはMicrosoftのPlaywright MCPをベースにしており、スタンドアロンフレームワークとしてエンドツーエンドの自動テスト向けに最適化されています。このプロジェクトはApache 2.0ライセンスに基づいて配布されています。
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.
