A
licenseB
qualityB
maintenanceMCP server that enables AI agents to perform comprehensive web audits using Google Lighthouse with 13+ tools for performance, accessibility, SEO, and security analysis.
11
1,125 npm
70
MIT
periscope-mcp
by segentic-lab
Related Servers
Alternatives to periscope-mcp
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for browser automation that lets LLMs interact with web pages through structured accessibility snapshots, bypassing the need for screenshots.8235,425,474 npmApache 2.0
Related Servers
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI agents to autonomously test, debug, and analyze web interfaces visually using Playwright, with 30 tools for screenshots, workflows, performance, and visual comparison.3043 npm83ISC
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that fuses Playwright and browser-use for browser automation testing, offering 59 tools for AI-driven exploration and precise assertions on a shared browser instance, with built-in stealth anti-detection.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that unpacks and structures Playwright trace.zip archives so AI agents can perform root-cause analysis on CI failures, with 16 focused tools for inspection, DOM/UI analysis, root-cause analysis, and performance analysis.1939 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenancesingle-binary MCP server that gives AI agents a browser. 66 tools for navigation, form filling, data extraction, screenshots, and DOM diffing — built on pure Chrome DevTools Protocol.13MIT
squirrelscanofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for website QA auditing, covering SEO, performance, security, accessibility, and agent experience with 260+ rules and AI-optimized output for coding agents.267MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAn agentic QA framework that authors, generates, triages, and self-heals Playwright tests for any web app, usable from Claude Code/Desktop as an MCP server or from CI as a CLI.5MIT
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Scored across 74 tools
Disambiguation3/5
Descriptions are often precise, but the set contains several overlapping primitives: wait_for_network and upload_file exist both as standalone tools and as interact_and_test actions, while get_page_map/get_page_elements/find_element and test_url/run_checks_on_session cover adjacent ground. An agent could easily select the wrong tool without very careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a readable verb_noun convention (get_, set_, test_, list_, create_, delete_), but there are conspicuous outliers like interactive_login, visual_check, session_report, page_state, flow, and periscope_system that break the pattern. The naming is understandable overall, but not consistent enough to reliably predict a tool's name from its function.
Tool Count1/5
74 tools is an extreme mismatch for a coherent MCP surface and imposes a heavy selection burden on agents. Even for a broad browser-testing domain, many of these tools are granular variations (assert_condition vs assert_all, compare_screenshots vs visual_check) that could be consolidated into a much smaller, more approachable set.
Completeness4/5
Coverage is remarkably thorough: project lifecycle, auth setup, crawling, sessions, interactions, assertions, network interception, visual regression, accessibility, and reporting are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_project for changing crawl limits or base URL, no baseline listing/removal for visual_check, and no report deletion, but agents can work around these.
Maintenance
ActivityNo data
ResponsivenessResponsive