Skip to main content
Glama

Recorded use of the accessibility widget, per feature and page view

widget_usage
Read-only

The Inclusify accessibility widget — the overlay Inclusify serves onto the customer's own site — and what visitors do with it. Read this before writing ANY remediation plan for a site where site_overview reports "widgetEnabled": true, and for 'is anyone using this', 'what are we getting for the money', 'which features matter to our visitors', or before a renewal or cancellation conversation. The overlay gives visitors contrast, text-size, spacing, cursor, reading and navigation controls, so an active one is a layer between the site's source and what a visitor experiences, and a plan written from findings alone describes a page nobody sees: some of what you are about to fix is already being worked around at runtime, and a fix at source can duplicate or fight a feature that is switched on. A review wrote a 19-item plan for a store with the overlay live and never mentioned it once. What it returns: per feature, the number of page views in which a visitor switched it on, on how many separate days, the total across all features, and this month's visitor count for context. The unit is page views, not clicks: reporting is deduped per feature per page view, so a slider adjusted repeatedly on one page counts once. Read every count as a floor. Do not use it to judge whether the site is accessible — it measures visitor behaviour, not the site's condition; site_overview and the finding tools do that. Read-only: costs one read and loads no page. Reads zero carefully: a zero total is reported together with which of four causes applies (the widget is switched off in Inclusify; nothing has EVER reported in, meaning the widget is almost certainly not installed on the site at all; visitors were counted before but not in this window; or visitors arrived and feature use has not been reported). A zero of the last kind means only that: no report has arrived. It has two causes a zero cannot tell apart — nobody switched a feature on, or the site is still serving a widget build from before feature reporting existed (bundles are edge-cached for hours and a storefront can hold an older copy for much longer). Never present an empty result as evidence that the widget is unwanted or unused.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHow many days back to count (default 30, cap 365).
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 (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it is read-only and costs one read, loads no page, dedupes per feature per page view, and reports zero results with four possible causes. It also cautions that a zero total cannot distinguish between no feature use and an outdated widget build, and warns never to present an empty result as evidence of non-use. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and detailed, but every sentence contributes meaningful context—ranging from use-case justification to return semantics and gotchas. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and the critical reading-before-use context. While it could be trimmed, the depth is warranted given the high risk of misinterpretation and misuse.

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?

The description is exceptionally complete for this tool's complexity. It explains what the tool returns (per-feature counts, deduping, totals, visitor count), how to interpret zeros (with four causes and their nuances), and explicitly addresses common pitfalls and misuse cases. With no output schema, the description fully compensates and more.

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?

Both parameters (days, website) are fully described in the input schema with clear meanings and ranges. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, though it does clarify output interpretation (unit is page views, deduping, zero handling) which indirectly affects understanding of the 'days' parameter results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool reports accessibility widget usage per feature and page view, with explicit details on what metrics are returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like site_overview by noting it measures visitor behaviour, not site accessibility, and even names the alternative for accessibility judgments.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use context: 'before writing ANY remediation plan for a site where site_overview reports widgetEnabled: true', and lists specific query intents like 'is anyone using this' and 'before a renewal or cancellation conversation'. It also states when not to use it ('Do not use it to judge whether the site is accessible') and points to alternatives (site_overview and finding tools).

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.