testmcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to testmcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides MCP tools that give LLM agents a full QA engineer workflow: scanning projects, generating deterministic test suites, executing them across browser/API/mobile, diagnosing failures, and proposing fixes that require human approval.-

io.github.phoeniceofficial
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceContract-driven test enforcement and reporting for LLM-generated code via MCP, VS Code, Copilot CLI, Claude, Cursor, or Python SDK.14MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA universal AI-powered testing server built on the Model Context Protocol (MCP). Allows AI agents to inspect, execute, test, monitor, debug, and report on software projects.3GNU Lesser General Public v2.1 only
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceExposes a set of CLI tools (test generation, documentation generation, linting, test running, code search) to AI assistants via MCP, allowing them to perform these tasks through natural language.3-
- AlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for deterministic local test execution and normalized test result reporting, supporting pytest and Jest with coverage summaries.6MIT
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceAgentic code-quality CLI and stdio MCP server that runs real Python and JS/TS quality engines (Ruff, pytest, ESLint, Prettier, Vitest, etc.) for linting, testing, and reviewing code.79MIT
TDQS
Scored across 11 tools
Most tools have distinct resource+action targets: run_tests vs run_affected, list_runs vs list_artifacts, and get_failures vs get_test_detail are separable. However, get_failures and get_test_detail both surface failure detail, and parse_log and parse_artifact both 'parse' test data, creating mild potential for misselection.
Nearly all names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_runs, run_tests, get_failures, parse_artifact, rerun_failed). The lone outlier is 'discover', a bare verb with no noun object, which is a minor deviation from the otherwise uniform convention.
11 tools is well-scoped for a test-runner server, with each tool covering a distinct facet (discovery, execution, failure drill-down, coverage, artifact parsing). No redundant or filler tools appear.
The surface covers the full test lifecycle: discovery, running (full and affected), failure inspection, reruns, coverage, and CI log/artifact parsing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no config/watch or artifact listing beyond GitHub Actions), but core workflows are complete.