Add LLM & MCP testing section

[Agent-Hellboy]

Summary by Sourcery

Documentation:

• Introduce an 'LLM & MCP Testing' section in the README and move the mcp-server-fuzzer resource from the Property Based Testing section into this new category.

[semanticdiff-com]

Review changes with  

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

Adds a new dedicated 'LLM & MCP Testing' section to the README and relocates the existing mcp-server-fuzzer link from the Property Based Testing section into this new category to better categorize resources.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Introduce a dedicated LLM & MCP Testing section and reclassify the mcp-server-fuzzer resource into it.	Add 'LLM & MCP Testing' entry to the README table of contents. Create a new 'LLM & MCP Testing' section describing the mcp-server-fuzzer tool and its capabilities. Remove the mcp-server-fuzzer entry from the 'Property Based Testing' section to avoid duplication and misclassification.	README.md

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Agent-Hellboy, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request enhances the README.md by introducing a dedicated section for LLM (Large Language Model) and MCP (Model Context Protocol) testing tools. This change improves the document's structure and makes it easier for users to find relevant resources for these specific testing domains, reflecting the growing importance of these technologies. The mcp-server-fuzzer tool has been appropriately relocated to this new section.

Highlights

• New Section Added: A new top-level section titled "LLM & MCP Testing" has been introduced to categorize tools specifically for Large Language Model and Model Context Protocol testing.
• Tool Relocation: The mcp-server-fuzzer tool, previously listed under "Property Based Testing", has been moved to the new "LLM & MCP Testing" section for better organization and relevance.
• Table of Contents Update: The table of contents in the README.md has been updated to include a link to the newly added "LLM & MCP Testing" section.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[qodo-code-review]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis and compliance. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code self-documenting Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful degradation Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Error Handling Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while providing sufficient detail for internal debugging. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Logging Practices Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent vulnerabilities Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
Update

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

[qodo-code-review]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

No code suggestions found for the PR.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to e9018c7 in 37 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 31 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. README.md:13

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the generated anchor (#llm--mcp-testing) in the Contents list works as expected on GitHub.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

2. README.md:132

• Draft comment:
  Added new 'LLM & MCP Testing' section with mcp-server-fuzzer. Consider clarifying what 'LLM' stands for if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

3. README.md:144

• Draft comment:
  Removed duplicate mcp-server-fuzzer entry from the Property Based Testing section to avoid redundancy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_GzDHIUXOINo6vwlB

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This is a great addition to improve the organization of the list. Creating a dedicated section for LLM & MCP testing tools makes a lot of sense.

While you're reorganizing, you might also consider moving the promptimize tool from the "Testing Frameworks" section to this new "LLM & MCP Testing" section. Its description as a "prompt engineering evaluation and testing toolkit" makes it a perfect fit here.

I've also left one comment about the alphabetical ordering of the new section in the document body.

[gemini-code-assist]

The new 'LLM & MCP Testing' section is not in the correct alphabetical order within the document. While it is correctly placed in the table of contents, the section itself should be moved to be between the 'Fixtures' and 'Load Testing' sections to maintain consistency and improve navigation.

[Agent-Hellboy]

okay

[llamapreview]

Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview

Review Status: Automated Review Skipped

Dear contributor,

Thank you for your Pull Request. LlamaPReview has analyzed your changes and determined that this PR does not require an automated code review.

Analysis Result:

PR only contains documentation changes (1 files)

Technical Context:

Documentation changes typically include:

• Markdown/RST file updates
• API documentation
• Code comments
• README updates
• Documentation in /docs directory
• License and contribution files

We're continuously improving our PR analysis capabilities. Have thoughts on when and how LlamaPReview should perform automated reviews? Share your insights in our GitHub Discussions.

Best regards,
LlamaPReview Team