Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Change where monitoring email goes, and whether it is sent

set_monitoring_settings
DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when the user wants monitoring notifications for a site to go somewhere else, or wants to stop or restart them — routing alerts to a shared inbox, or quietening a site during a rebuild. WRITES to this website's Inclusify configuration, never to the site itself. Three independent settings, all optional: the notification email address, whether regression ALERTS are sent, and whether the periodic DIGEST is sent. Anything you leave out is left exactly as it is, so you can change one without knowing the other two. Pass an empty string for the email to clear the override and fall back to the account's billing address. This REQUIRES CONFIRMATION — call without "confirm" first, show the user the preview, and call again with the token once they agree — because turning alerts off or repointing them is a change that hides its own consequences: the site can regress and nobody hears. The PREVIOUS recipient is emailed a record with a link to undo it, which is deliberate — the person who just stopped receiving these is the one who needs to know. It does not change what is monitored: use add_monitored_pages for that.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoWhere monitoring notifications should go. An empty string clears the override so they fall back to the account's billing address. Omit to leave it unchanged.
confirmNoLeave this out on the first call to get a preview of exactly what would change, plus a confirmation token. Call again with the same arguments and that token to apply the change. The token lasts 10 minutes and works once.
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".
alertsEnabledNoWhether regression alerts are sent when the site gets worse. Omit to leave unchanged.
digestEnabledNoWhether the periodic summary digest is sent. Omit to leave unchanged.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that it is a write to configuration, requires a two-step confirmation, and emails the previous recipient with an undo link. It explains why these behaviors exist (consequences of turning alerts off), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Although long, every sentence serves a purpose—purpose, side effects, confirmation, and sibling distinction are all covered without redundancy. The structure fronts the usage guideline, then details, then exclusions.

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 mutation tool with a confirmation requirement and side effects, this description is fully sufficient. It covers the confirmation workflow, the undo notification, and what the tool does not do, leaving no gap for the agent.

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%, but the description adds relational meaning: it explains the empty-string email behavior, that omitted params are left unchanged, and the confirm token lifecycle. These enrich the parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the resource (monitoring settings) and the actions (change where email goes, stop/restart alerts). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling add_monitored_pages, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Opens with 'Use this when the user wants...' and provides concrete use cases (routing to shared inbox, quietening during rebuild). It names the alternative tool for a different task and explains the confirmation flow, making when and when-not to use it explicit.

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