Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

What is on record for one website

compliance_status
Read-only

Use this when the question is documentary rather than technical: a demand letter, complaint or lawsuit, a procurement or customer accessibility questionnaire, an ADA / EAA / Section 508 conformance claim, 'what evidence do we have', 'what does our accessibility statement actually claim'. The evidence Inclusify holds for one website: the accessibility statement (company name, conformance level claimed, standards named, whether it is published and when, contact details on it) and the scanning record behind it (how many pages are checked against how many the plan includes, when the site was last checked, how many checks are on record, and whether anything is currently blocking them). Also returns an explicit list of gaps in that record. What it adds over site_overview: that tool's "statement" block says only whether one exists and is published, so if the question is 'is our statement live' it has already been answered and this call adds nothing. This one is the contents — the company named, the conformance level claimed, the standards named, and whether there is any contact route for reporting a barrier — plus how many checks are on record behind it and an explicit list of gaps. It holds no per-criterion WCAG status and no scan history; score_history and list_violations own those. This tool cannot and does not say whether a site is legally compliant — nothing in the data supports that conclusion, and it must not be inferred or reported as one. Report what is on record and what is missing, and leave the legal question to the customer's counsel. Read-only: costs one read and loads no page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although the annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, the description goes further: 'Read-only: costs one read and loads no page', and it discloses important limitations such as not holding per-criterion status and not being able to determine legal compliance. It also warns the agent not to infer or report legal conclusions, aligning with openWorldHint expectations.

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 dense and front-loaded with usage guidance, but it repeats some return-content details in the comparison with site_overview. Still, nearly every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the length is justified by the need to disambiguate siblings and warn against legal misuse.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to explain the tool's return contents and boundaries, and it does so comprehensively: statement fields, scan counts, gap list, exclusions, and operational cost. Nothing needed for a single-parameter read-only tool is missing.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter, website, with an example. The description refers to 'one website' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies a precise documentary-evidence purpose and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: accessibility statement contents, scanning record, and a gap list. It also distinguishes itself from site_overview, score_history, and list_violations, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 cases, such as demand letters, procurement questionnaires, and conformance claims, and explicitly says when not to use it: if site_overview already answered whether a statement is live, or when per-criterion WCAG status or scan history is needed. It also names alternative tools for those cases.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources