Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Reflow and resize check

check_reflow
Read-only

Static reflow audit against WCAG 1.4.4 Resize Text, 1.4.10 Reflow, 1.4.12 Text Spacing, 1.3.4 Orientation and 1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus. Pass html and/or css, or a public url (the page and up to 4 same-site stylesheets are fetched). Flags viewport meta that blocks zoom, fixed pixel widths and min-widths over 320px, overflow hidden with fixed heights, px base font sizes, vw font sizes without clamp, !important on line-height, letter-spacing or word-spacing, orientation locks, nowrap text, tables without a scroll wrapper, hover-only reveals, and pages with no width media queries. Each finding names the criterion and gives the fix. Reads source only: it does not lay the page out or run script, so confirm at 320px width and 400 percent zoom.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_reflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cssNoCSS text to analyze, with or without html.
urlNoA public page to fetch instead. Up to 4 same-site stylesheets are fetched too.
htmlNoPage HTML source. Optional if url is given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / css / description
      Previous value: -"CSS text to analyse, with or without html."New value: +"CSS text to analyze, with or without html."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only supply readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints; the description adds substantial context beyond that: what network access occurs (public page plus up to 4 same-site stylesheets), the full set of rule categories checked, the output shape ("each finding names the criterion and gives the fix"), and an explicit capability boundary (does not lay out or execute script). That limitation disclosure is exactly what prevents a false-negative reading of results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and criteria before the long flag list, and every sentence carries information — the rule enumeration, the fetching note, and the manual-verification caveat all earn their place. It is dense and near the upper bound of comfortable length, but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what a finding contains (criterion plus fix), how inputs are sourced, and what the tool cannot do. For a 3-parameter static analysis tool that is everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `html` and `css` are combinable ("and/or"), `url` is the alternative input path, and the url path has a hidden side effect (fetching up to 4 same-site stylesheets). Nothing is said about url scheme restrictions or size limits, so not a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Static reflow audit") and names the exact WCAG criteria covered (1.4.4, 1.4.10, 1.4.12, 1.3.4, 1.4.13), which cleanly separates it from broader accessibility siblings like audit_page_accessibility or check_contrast. The enumeration of what it flags makes the boundary unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear invocation context: supply `html` and/or `css`, or a public `url` (with the page and up to 4 same-site stylesheets fetched). It also states the key limitation (source-only, no layout or script) and tells the agent to confirm manually at 320px/400% zoom. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for rendered/live checks, so no explicit when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Designers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources