Tollmint

legal_accessibility

Accessibility duties and the cases brought under them: ADA Titles II and III, Section 508, the European Accessibility Act in force since 2025-06-28, EN 301 549, UK and Canadian regimes — with the WCAG version and conformance level each one actually incorporates, the microenterprise and undue-burden carve-outs, and compliance dates still ahead. Enforcement rows include the FTC’s $1M action against an accessibility overlay vendor and a case where a site running an overlay was sued anyway, plus defence wins that mark the limits. Free — this call costs nothing. No account or payment required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`search`	No	Free-text over summary, instrument and detail.
`status`	No	Filter to one lifecycle state.
`dead_only`	No	Return only rules that are NOT live law — vacated, superseded, or still proposed. These are the rules most often wrongly believed to be in force.
`jurisdiction`	No	Substring match, e.g. "EU", "UK", "US-federal", "California", "Germany".
`verified_only`	No	Only rows whose source URL resolved when last checked. Off by default: many primary sources (courts, national gazettes) block automated checkers, so "blocked" is not "bad".

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the call costs nothing, no account or payment required, and outlines the type of data returned (laws, enforcement rows, defenses). This provides good behavioral context beyond what the schema offers.

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?

The description is one long paragraph packing many details; it front-loads the topic but is somewhat verbose. It could be more concise by splitting into sentences or bullet points while retaining all information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the scope of data, cost, and key details about the content. It lacks mention of pagination or sorting, but overall it is fairly complete for a retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is 83%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'search' for free-text, 'dead_only' for non-live law). It provides general context but no extra parameter guidance.

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 covers accessibility duties and cases, listing specific laws and regimes (ADA, Section 508, European Accessibility Act, etc.), enforcement examples, and that it's free. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like legal_claims and legal_scraping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for researching accessibility law, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or alternative tool names. Usage is implied by content alone.

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

All Tollmint tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

All 20 tools have clearly distinct purposes, grouped by domain prefixes (content_ai, design_ai, legal, psych, ref, tollmint, web). Even similar-sounding tools like psych_dark-pattern-detect and psych_dark-patterns are differentiated as a live scanner versus a reference taxonomy. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming mostly follows a prefix_descriptive pattern, but some tools use hyphens (content_ai-score, design_ai-slop-detect) while others use underscores (legal_accessibility, psych_biases). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score, but the pattern is still clear and readable.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, but each tool serves a specific, justifiable need across multiple domains (legal, psychology, content analysis, geocoding, internal). The count feels comprehensive rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major areas implied by the domain prefixes: comprehensive legal compliance references, extensive psychology/behavioral design tools, content and design analysis, geocoding, and internal server management. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?