Playwright Report MCP vs SHAFT MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Playwright Report MCP and SHAFT MCP MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose Playwright Report MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Playwright Report MCP Details

Choose SHAFT MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore SHAFT MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Playwright Report MCP Browser Automation	SHAFT MCP Browser Automation
Summary	Run Playwright tests and surface structured results for AI agents doing test failure analysis.	SHAFT browser automation, capture, and offline deterministic failure diagnosis
Category & Scope	Browser Automation	Browser Automation

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "playwright-report-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "playwright-report-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "shaft-mcp-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "shaft-mcp-2"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons