Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Start a full-site crawl

start_crawl

Use this when the stored scan covers too little of the site to answer from — one page scanned out of eighty discovered, or a site never crawled — and a site-wide audit is what was asked for. WRITES to this website's Inclusify configuration — never to the site itself: queues one full-site accessibility crawl. The scan worker discovers pages from the website's primary domain and audits up to maxPages of them, which is capped at the plan's audited-page allowance; when a requested maxPages is clamped down to that cap, the response says so. Asynchronous by design: this returns the job id immediately — keep working, then collect the outcome with crawl_summary (progress, coverage, averages, worst pages) and read the findings with list_violations. Safe to retry: if a crawl is already PENDING or CRAWLING it does not start a second one, it returns the running job and its progress. Removes and edits nothing — not pages, not monitoring, not settings. Costs no page allowance; at most 3 crawls per website can be started per day (UTC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".
maxPagesNoAudit at most this many of the discovered pages. Omit for the plan's full audited-page allowance; anything above the allowance is clamped to it and the response says so.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: async job-return semantics, conditional retry safety (no duplicate crawl when PENDING/CRAWLING), maxPages clamping behavior, zero page-allowance cost, and the 3-crawls-per-day UTC limit. The 'writes to config, never to the site' and 'removes and edits nothing' statements align with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false with 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Though lengthy, every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information: trigger condition, write-target boundary, clamping behavior, async pattern, retry safety, non-destructiveness, and rate limit. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded before implementation details.

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?

Comprehensive for a complex async tool with no output schema: it explains what the call returns (job id immediately), how to obtain outcomes (crawl_summary, list_violations), resource costs, retry behavior, and rate limits. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already documents about website domain format and maxPages clamping; it adds little new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing that the cap is the plan's audited-page allowance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'queues one full-site accessibility crawl' writing to the Inclusify configuration, never the site itself. The concrete trigger examples ('one page scanned out of eighty discovered, or a site never crawled') make it distinguishable from single-page scan tools and from result-reading siblings like crawl_summary.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: stored scan coverage is insufficient AND a site-wide audit was requested. It also routes follow-up behavior to named siblings (crawl_summary for progress/coverage, list_violations for findings), giving the agent a complete workflow path.

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