failure-reportofficial
A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceEnables querying Playwright test failure reports and execution results directly from AI assistants, allowing retrieval of test outcomes, failures, and report details.
MIT
QA Copilot MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to QA Copilot MCP Server
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.-
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAutomated Playwright E2E test repair powered by a self-improving, governed MCP server that runs failing tests, collects failure artifacts, reasons about root causes, validates and applies fixes, and re-runs to verify.12-
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceSupercharges AI-assisted debugging of Playwright tests by parsing trace files to extract failures, action history, network logs, screenshots, and suggesting fixes.66 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes AI agents as MCP tools to fetch Jira stories, generate BRDs and Playwright test scripts, run tests, and auto-heal broken locators. Integrates with Claude Desktop and Cursor IDE for enterprise-grade test automation.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI coding assistants to generate, score, run, and auto-heal Playwright E2E tests while enforcing domain-driven page object architecture and anti-flakiness rules.-
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct responsibility—summarizing test output, identifying flaky tests, explaining failures, generating test stubs, and fetching CI status. There is no meaningful overlap between any pair of tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear action-prefixed names: summarize_, list_, explain_, generate_, get_. Minor pluralization differences do not create confusion.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools cover a tightly scoped QA workflow—analyze results, detect flakiness, explain failures, generate tests, and check CI—without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The core QA reporting and triage loop is well supported, from parsing reports to explaining failures and detecting flaky tests. Minor gaps like actionable test-edit or test-deletion operations are absent, but they fall outside the visible purpose.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues