Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

What plans exist and what this site is on

plan_options
Read-only

Use this for any question about plans, pricing, limits or upgrading: 'what plan are we on', 'what does Pro cost', 'what would we get for upgrading', 'is it worth moving up', 'how many pages do we get', 'why can't I use X'. Also use it after any tool refuses on a plan gate — the refusal names the plan required, this says what that plan costs and what else comes with it. Returns every plan with its current price, monthly visitor allowance, audited-page allowance and in-product feature list, all read from Inclusify's live configuration rather than remembered — so do not quote a price from memory, quote this. It also returns where the current plan's allowances actually stand (pages monitored against the allowance, visitors this month against the cap), because 'should we upgrade' is not answerable from a price list alone: a site using a fraction of what it already pays for usually should not. It respects who owns the billing. An invoice-managed website has no self-serve upgrade at all, and this says so rather than offering a link that will not work for them. What it does NOT do: it changes nothing, charges nothing and creates no checkout. It returns no URL either — billing_link owns that. It holds no accessibility data; site_overview owns the site's condition. Works on every plan including Free. Read-only: two indexed reads and one cached config lookup, no page load.

Input Schema

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the operation is read-only and open-world, so the description carries the burden of behavioral detail. It explains that data comes from 'Inclusify's live configuration rather than remembered', tells the agent not to quote a price from memory, and discloses that invoice-managed sites cannot self-serve upgrade. This goes well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 fairly lengthy but front-loaded with immediate use cases, then product details, then a key behavioral warning about not quoting prices from memory. Every section contributes distinct value, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the full return set (every plan, price, visitor allowance, audited-page allowance, feature list), explains that current plan usage is also returned, and reveals the billing-ownership nuance. An agent has enough information to use this tool correctly in a wide range of plan-related questions.

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 schema has one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The tool description does not discuss the parameter, which is fine given the high coverage baseline, but it adds no additional meaning about how to populate or format it.

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 clearly identifies this tool as the resource for any question about plans, pricing, limits, and upgrading, with concrete examples like 'what plan are we on' and 'how many pages do we get'. It also distinguishes itself from generic plan tools by emphasizing it returns live configuration data and current usage allowances, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

The description gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this for any question about plans, pricing, limits or upgrading' and 'Also use it after any tool refuses on a plan gate.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the examples and the post-refusal use case provide clear contextual routing.

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