Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp

Whether the accessibility widget is actually on the site

widget_status
Read-only

Use this when the question is about the widget itself rather than about accessibility findings: 'is the widget working', 'is it installed', 'why can't I see it', 'did the install work', 'how do I add it', 'is it live for visitors'. Answers with two separate facts that are commonly mistaken for one — whether widget serving is enabled on the Inclusify account (a setting that defaults to ON for every account before anything is installed, so on its own it proves nothing), and whether anything has EVER been reported from the site by the embed itself, which is the only evidence that it is really there. Never report the enabled flag as installation. When nothing has ever reported in, it returns the exact script tag to paste — or, on a Shopify store, says that the widget is a theme app embed which can only be switched on from the Shopify admin, and that no assistant can do that step. What it does NOT do: it does not fetch the customer's site or check the page for the script, so it cannot see an embed that has been installed but not yet visited by anyone. It does not switch the widget on or off, and it reports no accessibility findings — site_overview and the finding tools own those. Works on every plan including Free. Read-only: three indexed reads, no page load.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
websiteYesThe website domain as registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses it does not fetch the site or check the page, returns the script tag when nothing has reported, and is read-only with 'three indexed reads, no page load.' The enabled flag caveat and lack of switching capability are also transparent, fully covering behavioral nuances.

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 long but every sentence delivers value: usage, distinctions, behavioral caveats, and read-only note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and usage, and the length is justified by the tool's nuance. Could be slightly tightened but remains efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains exactly what facts it returns, when it returns a script tag vs. app embed advice, and what it doesn't do. Given one parameter and no output schema, it covers all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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% (the param description is already in the schema). The tool description does not add extra semantics for the 'website' parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource: it answers questions about the widget itself, distinguishing from accessibility findings. It provides concrete example queries and names the two separate facts it returns, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like site_overview and the finding tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (questions about the widget) and when not (accessibility findings, site checks). It also mentions alternatives: site_overview and the finding tools own those concerns, and clarifies it cannot see an embed not yet visited. This leaves no doubt about proper selection.

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