Systems | Development | Analytics | API | Testing

After spending hours or even days manually testing your software, you may be wondering whether or not there’s a better way. The good news? There is.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of AI-driven development, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) has emerged as the critical standard for connecting AI applications to the data and tools they need. We are excited to announce the Technical Preview (TP) of Kong MCP Registry, a major milestone in our mission to provide the most comprehensive platform for modern API and AI management.

A mid-sized enterprise had a straightforward but powerful idea: use their locally-hosted AI model to automatically generate summaries of employee performance review data stored in their SQL Server database. The workflow seemed simple enough: The reality? This "simple" integration touches on some of the thorniest problems in enterprise software: database security, API orchestration, authentication, timeout management, and reliable data transformation.

With Valentine’s Day fast approaching, love is in the air. And apparently, so are breakup emails. This isn’t just about one pricing change. It’s about a pattern. Some tools promise “free forever” to get you invested, watch you build workflows, and then change the rules. They know you’ve onboarded your teams, documented your APIs, and integrated the tool into your daily work. By the time they spring the paid tier on you, switching feels painful.

AI is reshaping test automation fundamentals. Features that once required hours of manual scripting can now adapt automatically to UI changes, generate realistic test data on demand, and help teams predict which tests matter most. For QA engineers evaluating automation platforms, understanding how AI capabilities differ has become essential. This comparison examines SmartBear TestComplete, Tricentis Tosca, and Ranorex through their AI-powered features.

Scaling test automation from hundreds to thousands of tests introduces challenges underestimate. Maintenance overhead compounds as UI changes ripple through test suites. Parallel execution becomes essential but complex to orchestrate. Enterprise applications like SAP, Salesforce, and Oracle demand specialized testing approaches.

While every organization races to deploy AI agents faster, a quieter crisis is compounding in the background, and it will play a large part in determining who survives the agentic era. The numbers are stark. Too many executives see AI governance as a brake on innovation or something to figure out later, after the speed problem is solved. With agentic AI, that's backwards.

While every organization races to deploy AI agents faster, finance departments are watching something alarming unfold—and it will play a large part in determining who survives the agentic era. The numbers are stark: 84% of companies report more than 6% gross margin erosion from AI costs. Within that, 26% report erosion of 16% or more. And only 15% of companies can forecast AI costs within ±10% accuracy—the majority miss by 11-25%, and nearly one in four miss by more than 50%.

So as software engineers using AI coding assistants, we’re quickly learning of a new anti-pattern: Hallucinated Success. You give your agent (e.g. Claude via terminal or various IDE code assistants) the command “refactor the billing controller.” The agent happily complies, churning out nice clean code. The agent even goes so far as to write a new unit test suite that passes at 100%. You integrate it. Your test suites pass. Your production code breaks. Why?