Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

The most recent full-site crawl

crawl_summary
Read-only

Use this when the question is COVERAGE — how much of the site has actually been checked, which pages are the worst — or to collect the outcome of a crawl you queued with start_crawl. Read it before quoting any site-wide number, because it is the tool that says what the rest of them are a sample of. The latest full-site crawl of a website: status, the URL it started from, how many pages it found against how many it actually scanned, the average score, totals by impact, when it ran, and the worst-scoring pages it produced. Read the found-vs-scanned numbers before quoting the average: a crawl audits at most the plan's page allowance, so on a large site the average describes a sample and this tool says so explicitly. Returns the most recent crawl whatever its state, including a failed or still-running one, so the numbers can be partial; the status field says which. Read-only, from stored results — it does not start a crawl, load any page or spend page allowance. A website that has never been crawled says so, which is missing coverage rather than a clean site. For a page's trend over time use page_history; a crawl is one dated snapshot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".
worstPagesNoHow many worst-scoring pages to list (default 10, cap 25).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool is read-only and does not spend page allowance, that it returns partial data if a crawl is still running or failed, and that a never-crawled site is reported as missing coverage rather than a clean result. These behavioral traits are not visible in the annotations and are critical for correct interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and explicitly warns about sample vs. full coverage early. While it is longer than a typical description, every sentence adds value—usage guidance, data fields, caveats, and sibling routing. It is structured logically without redundancy, so the length is justified despite being on the verbose side.

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?

The tool returns a complex summary with many fields, and there is no output schema. The description lists every data element (status, start URL, found/scanned counts, average score, totals by impact, run time, worst pages) and explains edge cases (failed/running crawls, never-crawled websites, sample limitation). It also routes to page_history for trends, making it fully self-contained for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (website, worstPages) already clearly documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides—it mentions worst-scoring pages but does not elaborate on the worstPages parameter itself. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 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 specific verb ('use this when the question is COVERAGE') and clearly enumerates exactly what data the tool returns: status, start URL, found vs scanned counts, average score, totals by impact, run time, and worst-scoring pages. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming page_history as the alternative for trends and start_crawl as the way to queue a crawl, so an agent can reliably separate it from other tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the question is COVERAGE... or to collect the outcome of a crawl you queued with start_crawl') and when not to ('For a page's trend over time use page_history'). It also instructs the agent to read it before quoting any site-wide number, giving a clear precondition. This is model usage guidance with exclusions.

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