Skip to main content
Glama

zFinia Intelligence

by com.zfinia.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Accessibility Contrast Calculator

accessibility_contrast_calculator

Return WCAG 2.x sRGB contrast_ratio, wcag_aa, and wcag_aaa for one caller-supplied #RRGGBB pair (foreground, background, large_text). No interface-wide accessibility claim. Pay 1000 atomic USDC on Base via exact x402. MCP does not pay.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backgroundYes
foregroundYes
large_textYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wcag_aaYes
wcag_aaaYes
large_textYes
request_idYesDelivery request identifier; also returned in x-foundry-request-id.
service_idYesCanonical service identifier.
limitationsYes
contrast_ratioYes
service_versionYesVersion of the invoked service.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Delivery request identifier; also returned in x-foundry-request-id.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / service_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Canonical service identifier.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / service_version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Version of the invoked service.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "contrast_ratio",
-  "wcag_aa",
-  "wcag_aaa",
-  "large_text",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "request_id",
+  "service_id",
+  "service_version",
+  "contrast_ratio",
+  "wcag_aa",
+  "wcag_aaa",
+  "large_text",
+  "limitations"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / background / example
      Added value: +"#ffffff"
    • addedInput schema / properties / foreground / example
      Added value: +"#000000"
    • addedInput schema / properties / large_text / example
      Added value: +false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses the key side effect: payment of 1000 atomic USDC on Base via exact x402, and that the MCP itself does not pay. It does not detail payment mechanics or failure behavior, but the cost warning is substantial and non-obvious.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action and outputs, then add the critical scope exclusion and payment requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs, scope, and the paid nature of the call. The main residual gap is the precise role of large_text and how the x402 payment is expected to be arranged, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It names all three parameters and constrains the colors to #RRGGBB, but it does not explain how large_text affects the WCAG thresholds or what values are expected beyond the schema's examples.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact outputs (contrast_ratio, wcag_aa, wcag_aaa) plus the input scope (one #RRGGBB pair). It also disclaims interface-wide claims, which helps separate it from any broader accessibility audit tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly frames the tool as per-pair WCAG contrast checking ('one caller-supplied #RRGGBB pair') and explicitly rules out interface-wide accessibility claims. It does not name sibling alternatives or spell out when not to call beyond that scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All zFinia Intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources