A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceAutonomous WCAG 2.1 accessibility auditor that scans, fixes, re-verifies, and generates VPAT 2.5 EN 301 549 reports using AI vision analysis + DOM scanning.
Last updated
10,171
1
MIT
a11y-check
by com.nexaaly
Server Details
Real-browser WCAG audit that also finds keyboard-inoperable controls axe-core misses, with fixes.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.8/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and comprehensive for its stated functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
The single tool name 'check_accessibility' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. As the only tool, there are no conflicting conventions to cause inconsistency.
Tool Count3/5
The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a dedicated accessibility service. While a single comprehensive audit tool can be useful, typical servers in this domain might include multiple tools for different aspects (e.g., site-wide scans, report generation).
Completeness5/5
The tool covers the full scope of a single-page accessibility audit, including standard axe-core checks, additional custom checks, and returning actionable fixes. There are no obvious missing operations within the defined purpose of auditing one page.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_accessibilityAInspect
Audit one web page for accessibility problems using a real browser. Runs axe-core (WCAG 2.1 AA) plus checks that standard scanners do not perform: controls that look clickable but cannot be operated by keyboard, error messages not programmatically linked to their field, CAPTCHA barriers, duplicate main landmarks, and missing skip links. Returns findings WITH the code change that fixes each one. Use this when someone asks whether a site is accessible, whether it meets WCAG or the European Accessibility Act, or whether keyboard and screen-reader users can operate its controls.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Page to check. A bare domain is fine ("example.com"). Prefer a product or checkout page over a homepage — that is where accessibility failures cost sales. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: uses a real browser, runs axe-core, performs additional non-standard checks, and returns findings with code fixes. This gives the agent a complete picture of what the tool does, its method, and its output.
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 dense and information-rich but not overly long. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail; a slight compactness improvement is possible, but the structure is logical and front-loaded with the primary action.
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 explicitly states the return value ('findings WITH the code change that fixes each one') and covers input guidance, examples of checks, and use cases. This is complete for an effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 adds extra nuance beyond the schema by advising users to prefer product or checkout pages over homepages, which enriches the single parameter's semantics.
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 audits one web page for accessibility problems, naming specific standards (WCAG 2.1 AA) and unique checks beyond standard scanners. This distinguishes it from generic accessibility checkers and gives a concrete, specific verb+resource.
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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this when someone asks whether a site is accessible, whether it meets WCAG or the European Accessibility Act...' It also provides practical guidance on choosing a product/checkout page over a homepage, going beyond mere capability description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceAutomates WCAG 2.2 accessibility audits by connecting Claude with 8 screen readers, reducing manual audit time by 62%.Last updated
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceProvides comprehensive accessibility auditing tools for websites using axe-core, Lighthouse CLI, and WAVE API. Returns deterministic, WCAG-mapped results with selectors and DOM context for remediation.Last updated3441ISC
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenancePerforms automated web accessibility audits following WCAG standards using axe-core and Puppeteer, generating detailed reports in Spanish with recommended solutions and code examples.Last updated