Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Publish or withdraw the accessibility statement

set_statement_published
Destructive

Use this when the user wants the accessibility statement they have already written to go LIVE at its public URL, or wants to take it back down. WRITES to this website's Inclusify configuration, never to the site itself — the statement is hosted by Inclusify and the widget links to it. It does NOT write the statement: the shape, the sections and the limitations are filled in through the Inclusify panel, because a statement is a legal representation about the company's own conformance and the wording has to be theirs. If nothing has been written yet, this says so. Publishing is REFUSED, with an itemised list of what is missing, when the statement is incomplete — read that list to the user rather than reporting a failure. Calling this with published:true on a statement that is ALREADY published is not a no-op and is not a mistake — the public page serves the version captured at the last publish, so republishing is how edits made since reach it. BOTH DIRECTIONS REQUIRE CONFIRMATION: publishing makes a legal document about their conformance publicly readable and linked from every page carrying the widget, and withdrawing retracts a document an auditor or regulator may already have cited, after which the page returns 404. Call without "confirm" first, show the user the preview, and call again with the token once they agree. The account owner is emailed either way, with a link to undo it. Needs the STARTER plan, matching the panel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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".
publishedYestrue publishes the statement at its public URL and links it from the widget; false withdraws it, after which the page returns 404.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: publishing is refused with an itemized list if incomplete, republishing an already-published statement is not a no-op, withdrawing makes the URL return 404, confirmation is required in both directions, and the account owner is emailed with an undo link. This is far more than annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with purpose and every sentence contributes necessary operational or safety context. For a high-risk legal publishing action, the density is justified and well organized.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the calling sequence, failure modes, confirmation requirements, side effects, and plan constraint. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle the outcome responsibly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the confirm parameter's preview/token flow, the published parameter's exact publish/withdraw and 404 consequences, and the website domain format. This makes the parameters far more actionable.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: publishing or withdrawing an already-written accessibility statement at its public URL. It clearly distinguishes this from writing statement content and from modifying the website itself, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool is for.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user wants the accessibility statement ... to go LIVE ... or wants to take it back down') and what it does not do (does not write the statement content). It also gives a precise two-call confirmation workflow and plan requirement, leaving little 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