Automation Script Generator MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting different file types or stages in the test automation workflow. However, 'process_test_scenario' could overlap with the individual file generation tools, as it generates complete WDIO test files which might include components the other tools create separately. The descriptions help clarify but some ambiguity remains.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using clear action verbs like 'analyze', 'generate', 'process', and 'review'. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this server is well-scoped for generating WDIO automation scripts. Each tool serves a specific role in the workflow, from analysis to file generation and enhancement, making the count appropriate and efficient for the domain without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle of test automation generation, including analysis, file creation for components, features, pages, and steps, processing scenarios, and code review. A minor gap exists in lacking explicit tools for updating or deleting generated files, but agents can work around this by regenerating or using the review tool for modifications.
Average 2.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions generating a file and saving it to a path, which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, file format, error handling, or what 'only if needed' means behaviorally. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that creates files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that's front-loaded with the core action. However, 'only if needed' is ambiguous and doesn't earn its place, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's brief but could be more precise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a component file is, what format it generates, or the implications of 'only if needed'. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying data_items are used in generation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool generates a component file with data items, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'component file' is and doesn't distinguish from siblings like generate_feature_file or generate_page_file. The phrase 'only if needed' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_feature_file or generate_page_file. The phrase 'only if needed' implies some conditional usage but doesn't specify what conditions trigger the need, leaving the agent without practical direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for reading and analyzing, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it modifies files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or provides output details, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of analyzing repository patterns with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the analysis entails, what output to expect, or how it interacts with sibling tools, making it inadequate for guiding effective use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('repo_path' and 'pattern_types') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'pattern_types' entail or how analysis is performed, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read and analyze') and resource ('repository') with specific targets ('existing patterns, formats, and validation rules'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'review_and_enhance_code', which might also involve repository analysis, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid repository path, and does not mention sibling tools like 'review_and_enhance_code' for comparison, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool generates a file but does not cover critical aspects such as file overwriting behavior, error handling, permissions required for saving to 'output_path', or what happens if the path is invalid. This is inadequate for a tool that creates files.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of file generation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., file creation/overwrite rules), error conditions, and output details, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation in a testing context.
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, providing clear details for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying Gherkin syntax usage, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate WDIO feature file with Gherkin syntax (Given, When, Then)'. It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('WDIO feature file'), and syntax format ('Gherkin syntax'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'generate_component_file' or 'generate_page_file', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'generate_steps_file' or 'process_test_scenario', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts for usage, leaving the agent with insufficient direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions generating a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as file overwriting behavior, error handling, required permissions, or output format. For a file generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that generates files (a potentially complex operation), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the generated file contains beyond 'general functions and element selectors', error conditions, or how it integrates with other tools like 'process_test_scenario'. More context is needed for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'selectors' should be structured or what 'page_functions' entail). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a WDIO page object file with functions and selectors, providing specific verb ('generate') and resource ('WDIO page object file'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'generate_feature_file' or 'generate_steps_file' by specifying the file type, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_component_file' which might be similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_component_file' or 'process_test_scenario'. The description implies usage for WDIO test automation but doesn't specify prerequisites, dependencies, or context for choosing this over other code generation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'enhance' (implying mutation) and lists enhancement types, but doesn't describe what happens during enhancement (e.g., whether it modifies files in-place, creates backups, requires user confirmation, or has side effects like adding dependencies). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral details like safety, permissions, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Review generated code and enhance it') followed by specific enhancement areas. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from enhancement list for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (code review and enhancement with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., how enhancements are applied), error handling, or what the tool returns (e.g., success status, modified code snippets). For a mutation tool without structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (file_paths, review_criteria, repo_path) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the meaning of review criteria like 'pom' or 'existing_steps' in more depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Review generated code and enhance it with improvements, documentation, validation, POM patterns, and reusable functions.' This specifies the verb (review and enhance) and resource (generated code) with concrete enhancement areas. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_repository_patterns' or 'generate_*' files, which might have overlapping code analysis functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that code must be generated first), exclusions (e.g., not for raw code creation), or comparisons to siblings like 'analyze_repository_patterns' (which might focus on patterns rather than enhancements) or 'generate_*' tools (which create rather than review). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 generating a file but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or write operation, what happens if the file already exists, or any performance or error-handling traits. For a tool that likely creates files, this lack of detail on mutation behavior and potential side effects is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the generated file contains or how it's used would improve completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., how 'gherkin_syntax' relates to 'selectors'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate WDIO step definitions file with functions to execute Gherkin syntax.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('WDIO step definitions file'), and target ('functions to execute Gherkin syntax'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_feature_file' or 'process_test_scenario', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing Gherkin syntax input, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'generate_feature_file' for feature creation or 'process_test_scenario' for broader test handling. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens to existing files, error handling, performance characteristics, or what 'complete WDIO test files' entails. For a tool with 7 parameters and file generation, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, file generation, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'complete WDIO test files' means, what format they're in, whether this overwrites existing files, or what the expected output looks like. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and results.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the specific action ('process a test scenario') and the output ('generate complete WDIO test files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual file generation or analysis. It explicitly mentions the resource being processed (test scenario) and the transformation performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 its siblings like generate_feature_file or generate_steps_file. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![automation-script-generator MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raymondsambur/automation-script-generator/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raymondsambur/automation-script-generator)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![automation-script-generator MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raymondsambur/automation-script-generator/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/raymondsambur/automation-script-generator)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/raymondsambur/automation-script-generator'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server