Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Check the alt text on a page

check_page_alt_text
Read-only

Use this to check one page's images and alt text NOW — including a page no scan has ever covered, and straight after changing images or writing alt text, when the stored scan is already out of date. READ-ONLY: loads one page and inspects it; changes nothing. For what a stored scan already recorded across the site, which is free, use list_alt_findings instead. This one loads a page, so it is metered against the website's daily browser-check allowance and its monthly distinct-page allowance. It checks every image on the page for alt-text problems that can be decided from the markup: a missing alt attribute (which is not the same as an empty one), a filename used as alt, a redundant "image of" opener, alt too long to hear in one breath, alt that merely repeats the visible caption, and an image that is the only content of a link and leaves it with no accessible name. Images correctly marked decorative are counted and deliberately not reported, and neither is the same alt repeated across images: markup cannot tell a product gallery from a row of different products. The decidable version of that — one accessible name, two link destinations — comes from screen_reader_transcript. Whether an existing, plausible-looking alt actually describes its picture is a different question and is not judged here. Findings are capped at 20, worst impact first; imageCount and a stated findingsOmitted count cover the rest on a large gallery or catalogue page. A run that lands on a bot-protection interstitial rather than the page is reported as void, never as clean, and a void run carries no image counts and no findings. Where the interstitial title is contradicted by a page's worth of images, the run stands and carries challengeSuspected instead: trust the images, not the title. Read-only: nothing is written to the site.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPage to review. Must belong to the website above. Defaults to its homepage when omitted.
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".
suggestAltNoDraft replacement alt text for images with no alt or a filename as alt, by looking at them. Costs a vision call per image (max 6) against the website's AI budget, so it is off by default. Requires the PRO plan.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining exactly what it inspects (missing vs. empty alt, filename-as-alt, 'image of' opener, too-long alt, caption repetition, link-only content), what it deliberately excludes (decorative images, repeated alt), and edge cases like void runs and challengeSuspected. This level of detail leaves no misunderstanding about side effects or limitations.

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 lengthy but every sentence earns its place — it covers alternatives, costs, scope, exceptions, and edge cases in a logical order. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only guarantee, then drills into specifics. While a bit verbose, it is not padded and remains scannable.

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 compensates by enumerating all possible behaviors: the 20-finding cap with imageCount and findingsOmitted, the void-run handling, challengeSuspected logic, and the distinction between markup-decidable and semantic alt issues. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 a 3 is baseline, but the description adds real value: it explains the vision-call cost and PRO-plan requirement for suggestAlt and the homepage default for url. These operational nuances are not in the schema and materially affect how the agent should call the tool.

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 opens with a specific, time-sensitive use case ('check one page's images and alt text NOW') and explicitly contrasts itself with list_alt_findings, making the purpose unmistakable. The verb 'check' plus the resource 'page's images and alt text' is precise and distinguishes it from siblings.

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 when-to-use ('including a page no scan has ever covered, and straight after changing images'), when-not-to-use ('For what a stored scan already recorded... use list_alt_findings instead'), and even points to a sibling for a related but different task (screen_reader_transcript). The metering caveat further helps the agent decide whether the cost is acceptable.

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