Skip to main content
Glama

Render the page under a disabling condition

simulate_condition
Read-only

Use this for the audit findings a static scanner is structurally blind to: reflow at 400% zoom, tap targets too small on a phone, Windows High Contrast, and prefers-reduced-motion. It belongs in any thorough accessibility audit or remediation plan, not only when someone names zoom or tap targets — a plan that skipped it has not looked at low-vision, magnifier or mobile users at all. Loads the page with a real user setting in force and reports what breaks. Conditions: "forced-colors" (Windows High Contrast — content that disappears, and icons painted as CSS background images, which the mode drops), "zoom-400" (reflow at 400% zoom, emulated as a 320px viewport — sideways scrolling and content hidden at narrow widths), "reduced-motion" (animations that keep running and media that autoplays), "target-size" (tap targets under 24x24px at a phone viewport). Every check is geometric or API-based rather than pixel-based, and each condition reports the viewport it was measured in — they differ, 320px wide for zoom-400 and 390px for target-size against 1280px for the rest — so a geometry finding can be reproduced. Conditions that could not be applied are reported as skipped rather than passing silently. Each finding's selectors array holds up to 5 examples, with count the true total and selectorsTruncated set when more were cut; full: true returns them all from the stored run. Where count exceeds distinctSelectors the same markup repeats, so the fix is smaller than the count. A run that lands on a bot-protection interstitial rather than the page is reported as void, never as clean — conditions, findings and prose together, so a void run never carries numbers. Where the interstitial title is contradicted by findings measured on the page, the run stands and carries challengeSuspected instead: trust the findings, not the title. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPage to test. Must belong to the website above. Defaults to its homepage when omitted.
fullNoReturn every selector each finding carries instead of the first 5. Read from the result this run already stored — it does NOT load the page again and costs nothing against any allowance. This is the way to resolve selectorsOmitted: re-running the tool to see a truncated list spends a second browser check on work already done.
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".
conditionsNoWhich conditions to run. Defaults to all four.
includeMeasurementsNoInclude the raw per-condition measurements. Off by default — the findings carry the selectors you need, and the measurements are long.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them ('Read-only'). It adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: conditions that cannot be applied are 'reported as skipped rather than passing silently,' a bot-protection interstitial yields a 'void' run never presented as clean, and the challengeSuspected trust-the-findings logic. These are genuinely useful, non-obvious runtime traits. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded well, but the description is very long and dense, descending into edge cases that could be trimmed — the count-vs-distinctSelectors markup-repetition aside, the challengeSuspected interstitial logic, and the detailed void-run accounting. Every sentence adds some value, but overall scanability suffers from the length.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly: it documents the selectors array (up to 5, count as true total, selectorsTruncated, full:true behavior), viewport reporting for reproducibility, and the void-vs-clean run distinction. For a tool of this complexity (5 params, rich behavior), nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds deep semantics the schema lacks: it explains the conditions enum behavior (viewport widths 320px/390px/1280px, geometric vs pixel-based checks), and crucially that full:true 'reads from the result this run already stored — it does NOT load the page again and costs nothing against any allowance,' resolving selectorsTruncated without spending a second check. This materially changes how an agent would invoke the tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource — simulating a disabling condition on a page — and enumerates all four conditions verbatim (forced-colors, zoom-400, reduced-motion, target-size) with one-line definitions of each. It differentiates itself from static scanners ('structurally blind to'), so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like list_violations or keyboard_walk.

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?

Strong inclusion criteria: 'belongs in any thorough accessibility audit or remediation plan, not only when someone names zoom or tap targets,' with an explicit warning that skipping it means low-vision, magnifier and mobile users were not considered. It gives clear when-to-use guidance but never names a specific alternative tool or states exclusion conditions, and no direct sibling competitor is called out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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.