Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Pass/fail verdict for a CI pipeline

ci_gate
Read-only

Use this in CI or a deployment pipeline when a build should be blocked or allowed based on the site's accessibility: it turns the last recorded scan into a single passed true/false verdict against your thresholds. Criteria: minScore (1-100), maxCritical, maxSerious — any combination; with none given it defaults to minScore 80 and says so in the response. A failing verdict comes back as a normal result, not an error: read passed, do not retry. A website with no scan on record FAILS the gate — unmeasured must not pass CI — and so does one whose last scan attempt did not finish. The verdict names how many pages the judged scan covered; a pass over 1 page certifies that page, not the site. Judges the record only: no page is loaded, nothing is scanned by calling it. ENTERPRISE plan. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".
minScoreNoFail if the last recorded score is below this. Default 80 when no other criterion is given.
maxSeriousNoFail if the last recorded scan found more than this many serious violations.
maxCriticalNoFail if the last recorded scan found more than this many critical violations.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: failing verdict is a normal result not an error, unmeasured or incomplete scans fail the gate, and it judges only the recorded scan without loading pages. This prevents critical CI misbehavior like treating a failure as a retryable error.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: use-case, criteria, failure semantics, no-scan caveat, page-count caveat, and read-only confirmation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then covers edge cases in a logical order.

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 sufficiently explains the returned verdict and critical behaviors: how to read the result, when it fails, what the page-count caveat means, and that no scanning occurs. It is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly in a CI context.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the combination semantics ('any combination'), the default behavior when no criterion is supplied, and the fact that the response says so, which goes beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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 and resource: it produces a pass/fail verdict for a CI pipeline based on the last recorded accessibility scan. It distinguishes itself from general reporting tools by emphasizing the gate decision purpose and the verdict output.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: in CI or a deployment pipeline when a build should be blocked or allowed based on accessibility. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the intended context is clear and actionable.

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