Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Score trend over time

score_history
Read-only

Use this when the question is about TIME rather than the site's present state: is our accessibility getting better or worse, did last quarter's remediation move the number, when did the score drop, what did this look like a year ago. It answers trend and nothing else — it names no violation and locates nothing. Accessibility score for a website over time, from the scheduled monitoring scans already on record, with the direction of travel and the change over the window worked out. Per day for up to the last 30 days, where the plan keeps a daily series (Pro and above; below that the daily answer is served per month instead, and says so); per month, from the stored monthly snapshots, for up to 24 months — pass "months" (or granularity "month") for the long view. Pass "url" to follow one page instead of the site; without it each day's point is the mean across the pages scanned that day, so a day with one page scanned is not comparable with a day with ten. Read-only, from stored scans: it loads no page, costs no page allowance, and knows nothing newer than the last monitoring scan — it cannot confirm a fix deployed minutes ago. Full-site crawls are excluded (see crawl_summary); they are dated snapshots, not a series. A website with no scans in the window says so explicitly — that is missing data, never a clean result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoNarrow to a single page's own trend. Full URL or a path. Omit for the whole site.
daysNoHow far back to look, in days (default 30, cap 30 — daily history is kept for at most 30 days, and on some plans not at all). Use "months" to go further back.
monthsNoHow far back to look, in whole months (cap 24). One point per calendar month, from the stored snapshots: the score is where the site ended that month, the new/fixed counts are what happened during it. Overrides "days".
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".
granularityNoPoint size. Defaults to "day", or "month" when "months" is given.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it loads no page, costs no page allowance, knows nothing newer than the last monitoring scan, explains that a day with one page scanned is not comparable with a day with ten, and explicitly states that missing scans produce a 'missing data' message rather than a clean result. No contradiction with annotations.

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, starting with the key decision rule ('about TIME') before details. Every sentence adds information; however, the final section on daily monthly series is somewhat long and could be tightened. Overall, it earns its length because it packs rare and valuable guidance.

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 the tool's complexity (two time axes, plan-dependent availability, single-page vs site aggregation, sibling crawl_summary), this description covers all major operational edges: what data exists, what the points mean, how to request monthly data, what is excluded, and how missing data is signaled. No output schema exists, but the description explains the response semantics (direction of travel and change over window) sufficiently.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters; the description therefore only needs to add meaning. It does so for the key decision parameters (days vs months vs granularity, url for single-page trend, the per-day mean behavior). The only slight miss is that the description does not restate every parameter, but that is unnecessary given the high schema coverage.

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 'Use this when the question is about TIME rather than the site's present state' and immediately names the resource (accessibility score over time) plus what it does not do ('it names no violation and locates nothing'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_violations, crawl_summary, and site_overview, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use ('about TIME rather than the site's present state'), explicit when-not-to-use ('Full-site crawls are excluded (see crawl_summary)'), and behavioral caveats ('cannot confirm a fix deployed minutes ago'). It even explains how to choose between daily vs monthly granularity, eliminating ambiguity.

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