Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Add pages to daily monitoring

add_monitored_pages
Idempotent

Use this when a page that matters is not being watched at all — a checkout, an account area, a campaign landing page missing from list_monitored_pages — and should be checked from now on. WRITES to this website's Inclusify configuration — never to the site itself: adds URLs to the set of pages scanned on the daily monitoring rotation. Add-only: it never removes, pauses or edits a page; those stay in the Inclusify panel. Idempotent: a URL already monitored is reported back as alreadyMonitored, not duplicated and not an error. Every URL must be on the website's own domain(s); up to 20 per call. All-or-nothing against the plan's audited-page allowance: if the batch would not fit (paused pages hold their slots too), nothing is added and the response says what would. Loads no page and costs no page allowance. New pages are picked up by the scan worker's continuous queue — never-scanned pages first, then a re-scan roughly every 20h — not instantly; for an immediate answer use start_crawl or a live check tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesPages to monitor: full URLs on the website's own domain(s), or paths starting with "/" (resolved against the website's domain). At most 20 per call.
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral detail: it writes only to configuration, not the site; idempotent behavior with 'alreadyMonitored' response; all-or-nothing batch semantics against the audited-page allowance; and async pickup via the scan worker's queue with a ~20h re-scan. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Dense but well-organized: the usage trigger is front-loaded, then behavioral guarantees, constraints, and async caveats follow logically. Every sentence carries unique information; there is no filler or redundancy. The structure aids quick comprehension despite the length.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers write scope, idempotency, batch atomicity, page allowance, domain restriction, async pickup timing, and routes to alternatives. An agent can confidently decide whether to call it and what to expect, with no missing critical details.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, which already document full URLs vs paths, domain restriction, and maxItems=20. The description re-states the 20-per-call limit and domain requirement without adding new parameter-level insight. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema already does the heavy lifting, and no additional meaning is provided.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'adds URLs to the set of pages scanned on the daily monitoring rotation.' Explicitly distinguishes from siblings: 'Add-only: it never removes, pauses or edits a page' and 'for an immediate answer use start_crawl or a live check tool.' The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States exactly when to use ('a page that matters is not being watched at all — a checkout, an account area, a campaign landing page missing from list_monitored_pages') and provides explicit exclusions and alternatives: 'for an immediate answer use start_crawl or a live check tool.' Also clarifies that removal/pause/edit goes to the Inclusify panel, giving a complete when/when-not picture.

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

All Inclusify Accessibility toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The descriptions do exceptional cross-referencing work, explicitly separating near-neighbor pairs (add_website vs add_domain, list_alt_findings vs check_page_alt_text, plan_options vs billing_link, widget_status vs widget_usage). A few clusters remain that an agent could confuse without reading carefully, notably site_overview vs compliance_status (both report statement existence and scan-record state) and crawl_summary vs list_monitored_pages vs site_overview (all touch coverage numbers). Overall, distinct purposes are clearly delineated despite the large surface.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case with strong family patterns: list_* (5 tools), add_* (3), set_* (7), plus org_* and *_history pairs. The main inconsistency is the mix of verb-led names (list_violations, set_slack_channel, start_crawl) with noun-led read names (site_overview, compliance_status, widget_usage, next_steps), but the noun-led names follow a coherent 'what it returns' vocabulary (status, summary, history, overview, rollup). Minor deviations rather than chaos.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is heavy and sits above the 25-tool threshold where agent navigation starts to degrade, but the server covers a genuinely broad domain: website lifecycle, monitoring, four finding types, four live-audit tools, seven config setters, org rollups, billing, and CI. Most tools earn their place and none are duplicates, but several could plausibly be merged (set_slack_channel/set_slack_events/set_monitoring_settings into one notifications tool; list_violations/list_alt_findings/list_content_findings with a filter). The count is on the edge of unwieldy for an agent's tool-selection step.

Completeness3/5

The read/audit/analysis side is rich and well-covered: findings, history, live checks, org rollups, coverage, and validation all have tools. However, the write side is one-directional: add_monitored_pages is explicitly add-only, and there is no remove_website, remove_domain, or remove_monitored_pages, so teardown and 'stop monitoring this page' requests hit dead ends that the descriptions acknowledge belong to the panel. Statement content writing and widget installation are also panel/browser-only by design, which is documented but still leaves those operations outside the agent's reach.

Resources