Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Register a website in the account

add_website
Idempotent

Use this when the user names a site that is not in their Inclusify account yet — list_websites does not have it, or a per-website tool answered that no such website exists. This is also the tool that fills in an account registered without a website at all, which /api/agent/start supports and which is a normal state rather than a half-finished signup. WRITES to the account's Inclusify configuration — never to the site itself: registers a domain as a website in the account, on the free plan, and starts nothing. No scan is run, no widget is installed on the site, nothing is charged and no plan is changed. Takes no "website" argument, because the point is that the website does not exist yet. REQUIRES CONFIRMATION: call it first without "confirm" to get a preview naming the exact domain, show that to the user, and only call again with the token once they have agreed — a domain can be registered to one Inclusify account only, so claiming it takes it from anyone else who might. Idempotent: a domain already in this account comes back as a no-op, not an error and not a second website. Refuses rather than guessing when the account has more than one workspace, because a website lands in exactly one and picking wrong hides it. At most 50 websites per account through this tool; the Inclusify panel has no such limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name for the website in the panel. Optional; defaults to the domain.
domainYesThe domain to register, e.g. "example.com". A full URL works too — it is reduced to its host, and a leading "www." is dropped, so the domain that actually gets registered is echoed back in the preview. Check it before confirming.
confirmNoLeave this out on the first call to get a preview of exactly what would change, plus a confirmation token. Call again with the same arguments and that token to apply the change. The token lasts 10 minutes and works once.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond these by detailing that it writes only to configuration, never to the site, that it is idempotent (no-op for existing domains), requires confirmation, enforces domain uniqueness, and refuses when workspace selection is ambiguous. 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?

The description is long but every sentence adds actionable information: usage conditions, precise scope, confirmation pattern, idempotency, edge cases, and limits. The most critical usage guidance is front-loaded ('Use this when...'), and the rest is dense with no redundancy. Length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, the two-step confirmation flow, domain normalization, idempotent behavior, account limits, and workspace ambiguity refusal. Nothing essential is left unstated.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning: explains why there is no 'website' parameter (because the website doesn't exist), clarifies the confirm token's purpose and lifecycle (10 minutes, works once), and describes domain normalization (full URL reduced to host, 'www.' dropped). This significantly enhances the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('registers a domain as a website') and resource ('account's Inclusify configuration'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming when to use it ('not in their Inclusify account yet') and what it does not do ('never to the site itself'). The purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiates from add_domain and list_websites.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('when the user names a site that is not in their Inclusify account') and a special case ('fills in an account registered without a website'). Also specifies the two-call confirmation workflow, refuses on multi-workspace ambiguity, and notes the 50-website limit. This gives complete routing and usage context.

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