The Tox Testing MCP Server allows you to execute and manage Python tests using tox and pytest with various options:
Run tests in different modes: All tests, specific groups, files, directories, or individual test cases
Supported test groups: clients, api, auth, uploads, routes
Custom configuration options:
Set maximum timeout to prevent hanging tests
Configure the directory containing tox.ini (TOX_APP_DIR)
Integration with development tools: Seamlessly works with VSCode and Cline
Efficient debugging workflow: Focus on specific failing tests for faster problem resolution
Provides tools for executing Python tests within a project using tox and pytest. Supports running tests in various modes (all tests, specific test files, individual test cases, or directory-based tests) and different test groups.
Enables running and managing Python test suites using tox commands. Handles different test execution scenarios with configurable timeouts and provides targeted testing capabilities for Python projects.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Tox Testing MCP Server run all tests in the api group"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP server that executes tox commands to run python tests within a project using pytest. This server provides a convenient way to run and manage python tests through the Model Context Protocol (MCP).
run_tox_tests - Execute tox tests with various modes and options
Supports different execution modes:
all: Run all tests or tests from a specific group
file: Run tests from a specific file
case: Run a specific test case
directory: Run all tests in a specified directory
Test groups supported:
clients: Client-related tests
api: API endpoint tests
auth: Authentication tests
uploads: Upload functionality tests
routes: Route handler tests
Related MCP server: MCP Pytest Server
Install dependencies:
npm installBuild the server:
npm run buildFor development with auto-rebuild:
npm run watchTo use with VSCode, add the server config to your MCP settings file at:
~/.config/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"tox-testing": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/tox-testing/build/index.js"],
"env": {
"TOX_APP_DIR": "/path/to/your/python/project",
"TOX_TIMEOUT": "600"
}
}
}
}env.TOX_TIMEOUT: (Optional) Maximum time in seconds to wait for test execution to complete. If a test run takes longer than this timeout, it will be terminated. Default is 600 seconds (10 minutes)
env.TOX_APP_DIR: (Required) Directory containing the tox.ini file. This is where tox commands will be executed from. The path should point to the root of your Python project where tox.ini is located.
The timeout is particularly important for:
Preventing hung test processes
Managing long-running integration tests
Ensuring CI/CD pipelines don't get stuck
The server provides a single tool run_tox_tests that can be used in different modes:
// Run all tests
{
"mode": "all"
}
// Run tests from a specific group
{
"mode": "all",
"group": "api"
}
// Run tests from a specific file
{
"mode": "file",
"testFile": "tests/test_api.py"
}
// Run a specific test case
{
"mode": "case",
"testFile": "tests/test_api.py",
"testCase": "test_endpoint_response"
}
// Run tests from a specific directory
{
"mode": "directory",
"directory": "tests/api/"
}When using this MCP with Cline, you can configure Cline's Custom Instructions to handle test execution efficiently. Here's a recommended workflow:
If asked to run tests on the project, use the tox-testing MCP. Follow these steps:
1. Run all tests across the project unless you are given instructions to run a specific test file or test case.
2. Review and rerun each failed test case individually as you troubleshoot and fix the issue from its output.
3. Repeat step 2 until the testcase passes.
4. Once all failed test cases from step 1 are passing rerun all tests again and repeat all steps until all tests pass.This workflow ensures:
Comprehensive test coverage by running all tests first
Focused debugging by isolating failed test cases
Verification of fixes by retesting individual cases
Final validation by running all tests again
Example interactions with Cline:
You: Run the tests for this project
Cline: I'll use the tox-testing MCP to run all tests:
{
"mode": "all"
}
You: Fix the failing test in test_api.py
Cline: I'll first run the specific test file:
{
"mode": "file",
"testFile": "tests/test_api.py"
}
Then address each failing test case individually:
{
"mode": "case",
"testFile": "tests/test_api.py",
"testCase": "test_endpoint_response"
}Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for details on our code of conduct and the process for submitting pull requests.
Run tox tests with different modes and options
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Test execution mode | |
| directory | No | Directory containing tests to run (required for directory mode) | |
| group | No | Test group to run in all mode (defaults to clients) | |
| testFile | No | Specific test file to run (required for file and case modes) | |
| testCase | No | Specific test case to run (required for case mode) |
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 runs tests but fails to describe execution behavior, side effects, permissions needed, or output format. This leaves critical operational traits undocumented for a test-running tool.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly with zero waste.
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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps that could hinder 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'different modes and options,' which aligns with the parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Run') and resource ('tox tests'), specifying the tool's purpose as executing tests with different modes and options. It distinguishes the tool's functionality but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings since none are provided, making it clear but not fully optimized for sibling comparison.
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 contextual cues. It mentions 'different modes and options' but does not specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit and lacking actionable advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools, making disambiguation perfect. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose that cannot be confused with any other tool in the set.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool name 'run_tox_tests' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent with itself.
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and flexibility, making the server feel thin and underdeveloped. While it might suffice for a very narrow scope, it often indicates a lack of comprehensive coverage for the domain.
With only one tool, the server is severely incomplete for the domain of tox testing, as it lacks essential operations such as configuring environments, listing tests, checking results, or managing dependencies. This minimal surface will likely cause agent failures when more complex tasks are required.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
An MCP server that provides access to Testiny projects, test cases and test runs
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
Official MCP server for Qase — manage test cases, runs, suites, defects via AI tools.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/that1guy15/tox-testing'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
