Playwright + MCP - The Future of Test Automation or a New Layer of Chaos?

Automation Is Changing—Fast

For the last decade, browser automation has mostly meant:

write selectors → write assertions → maintain scripts forever

Playwright evolved this model with fast execution, cross-browser support, auto-wait, trace viewer, API and web in one tool. But even Playwright is still fundamentally deterministic.

info

By deterministic, we mean that Playwright used to execute exactly what you tell it to do, in the form of test automation scripts. It did not understand context or intent.

That's where MCP (Model Context Protocol) comes in.

MCP turns your automation stack into a system that can reason, not just execute. It enables test agents to interpret natural language instructions, retrieve context from APIs, make decisions, and then let Playwright execute the actions on the browser.

This changes test automation from a script that clicks into a system that thinks before it clicks.

What MCP Actually Is (Beyond the Hype)

At its core, MCP is not a tool or a library for testing. It's a context bridge — a protocol that allows AI models to:

✔ Communicate with external systems like Playwright, Jira, Figma, APIs, databases

✔ Understand the current state of the application under test via context retrieval

✔ Make decisions based on that context

✔ Generate an “action plan” before execution

✔ Adjust the flow if an element is missing, a popup interrupts, or a test fails halfway

In short: MCP enables test reasoning, Playwright enables test execution. Together, they form something close to autonomous QA.

Architecture That Actually Works

One of the biggest mistakes I have seen teams make is letting AI tools directly control Playwright. This leads to flaky tests, unpredictable behavior, and a lack of control.

The most stable model looks like this:

Human Test Case / Jira Scenario / Plain English
        ↓
MCP Agent (Reasoning Layer)
        ↓
Produces → Action Plan: {locator, expected result, recovery strategy}
        ↓
Playwright Execution (Deterministic, Code-Driven)
        ↓
Feedback (Pass/Fail/Unexpected UI State)
        ↓
MCP Interprets + Decides Next Step

What Playwright + MCP Does Brilliantly

✅ Self-healing locators: MCP can reason about missing elements, dynamically generate new selectors, or decide to skip non-critical steps.

✅ Natural language test creation: Write tests in plain English or Jira tickets, and let MCP handle the translation to Playwright code. “Login as admin and verify invoice history” becomes an executable flow.

✅ Cross-Application Validation: MCP can validate user flows across multiple applications, ensuring a seamless experience from end to end.

✅ Adaptive Recovery Strategies: If a test step fails, MCP can decide whether to retry, skip, or log additional context for debugging.

✅ Faster Authoring: Non-developers can contribute to test case creation using natural language, reducing the bottleneck on engineering teams.

What Can Go Horribly Wrong (If You’re Not Careful)

❌ Letting AI directly write & execute Playwright actions This leads to unpredictable tests that break often.

❌ Letting MCP generate selectors at runtime with no validation This leads to Flaky scripts and “ghost clicks.”

❌ Mixing reasoning + browser actions in one layer This leads to confusion and makes it difficult to debug issues when they arise.

❌ Running MCP reasoning before every step Your 2-minute test becomes a 10-minute one. Knowing when to reason vs. when to execute is key.

❌ Relying ONLY on screenshots or visual diffs with AI-driven tests Every pixel shift becomes a failure nightmare.

Best Practices — If You’re Serious About This

Keep AI Out of Execution

Playwright runs the browser. MCP only decides what to do.

Two-Level Locator Strategy

1. Primary: data-testid, CSS, XPath
2. Fallback: visual anchors, semantic labels
3. Last resort: let MCP generate a locator only once, then store it.

Memory Matters

Maintain a UI Element Memory Map:

{
  "LoginButton": { "css": "button[data-test='login']", "last_seen": "/login" },
  "InvoiceRow": { "xpath": "//tr[td[text()='INV-12345']]" }
}

This ensures consistency across runs—AI doesn’t re-learn everything each time.

Log the MCP Reasoning

Store AI decisions like this:

{
  "step": "Click on Submit",
  "reasoning": "Submit button is disabled; checking for mandatory fields",
  "fallback": "Scroll + try again"
}

This helps debug why certain actions were taken.

Use MCP for Recovery, Not for Every Assertion

Use AI only when:

• Page did not load as expected
• Element is missing
• Unexpected modal appears
• Workflow deviates

Pros vs Cons

Playwright + MCP	The Upside	The Cost
Self-adapting tests	Less maintenance	Harder to debug if reasoning is hidden
Natural language plans	Non-QA teams can contribute	Needs strong validation before execution
Cross-tool orchestration	UI + API + DB in one flow	More moving pieces = more failure points
Recovery on failure	Fewer flaky tests	Can hide real bugs if misconfigured
Faster authoring	Quicker test creation	Requires training on best practices

Is This the Future?

Not “scriptless testing.” Not “AI will replace automation.”

It’s something more mature:

Deterministic execution + context-driven reasoning.

Playwright alone gives speed. MCP alone gives intelligence. Together—if architected well—they give testing superpowers.

But if done carelessly? It’s just flaky automation wrapped in fancy AI jargon.

About DevAssure

DevAssure is a great platform to experiment with a similar architectures. Start small, validate each layer, and build confidence over time.

With DevAssure's robust integration capabilities, you can seamlessly create a resilient and intelligent test automation framework.

🚀 See how DevAssure accelerates test automation, improves coverage, and reduces QA effort.
Ready to transform your testing process?

Schedule Demo