Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Where a human goes to change this site's plan

billing_link
Read-only

Use this when the customer has decided to upgrade, downgrade or cancel and needs the place to do it: 'how do I upgrade', 'where do I change my plan', 'send me the link', 'how do I cancel'. Use plan_options first if they are still deciding — that one has the prices and what each plan includes; this one is just the door. Returns the correct URL for this website's billing owner, which is not the same for every customer: a Shopify-billed store can only change plan on Shopify's managed-pricing page in its own admin, an Inclusify-billed website changes it on the website's page in the panel, and an invoice-managed website has no self-serve route at all — for that one this returns no link and says who to contact, rather than sending them somewhere that will not work. IMPORTANT: this returns a URL and does nothing else. It does not create a checkout session, does not charge a card, does not change a plan, and does not start a trial. Nothing on this server can — completing a plan change requires a human, signed in, in their own browser, and that is deliberate rather than a gap. Say so when handing the link over; do not imply the upgrade has been arranged. Works on every plan including Free. Read-only: one indexed read, no page load.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planNoOptional. The plan the customer wants, so the link opens on that plan instead of the plan list. Omit it if they have not chosen one — the list page is the better landing.
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns only a URL, does not create a checkout session, does not charge, and will return no link for invoice-managed customers. This level of detail prevents an agent from making false promises to the customer.

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?

The description is longer than average, but nearly every sentence carries meaningful caveats or routing guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and then systematically addresses exceptions and side effects, though some redundancy around 'does not change a plan' could be trimmed.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, the per-billing-type variations, the no-link case, and the read-only behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and handle the response correctly for each customer type.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes both parameters and their intended use. The description adds context about the overall return behavior but no additional semantic detail about the `plan` or `website` parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action and resource: returns the correct URL for the customer's billing owner to change plans. It explicitly distinguishes itself from plan_options and clarifies it is 'just the door'. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the customer has decided to upgrade, downgrade or cancel') and when not to ('Use plan_options first if they are still deciding'). It also covers edge cases like invoice-managed websites where no link should be sent.

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