Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SEO Score API

by io.github.SeoScoreAPI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ADA / WCAG Accessibility Audit

accessibility_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run an ADA / WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit (axe-core). Paid plans only. Returns the compliance score and grade, lawsuit risk (high/medium/low/minimal), category breakdowns, violations (WCAG 2.1 AA failures with affected elements and a plain-English fix), best_practices (not WCAG requirements; they never lower the score), needs_review and priorities. ADA audits have their own monthly allowance, separate from the audit quota (the usage tool reports ada_remaining). Each key may run 2 at a time; a 429 is not counted.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "accessibility_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to audit. Must include the protocol (https://...).
include_trackersNoAlso add the tracker and pixel inventory to the report.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prioritiesNoPrioritized fixes, most important first. Each has the issue, a plain_english explanation and who_fixes_it.
violationsNoWCAG 2.1 AA failures with affected elements and a fix.
lawsuit_riskNohigh, medium, low or minimal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses the billing gate, the separate monthly allowance and where to check it (ada_remaining), a concurrency limit of 2 per key, and the fact that 429 responses are not charged. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking and retrying a network-bound audit.

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 key constraints (paid plans, allowance, concurrency) are front-loaded before the return-value enumeration, and there is no filler. The report-field list is dense and partly redundant with the existing output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With annotations, a full-coverage schema and an output schema already present, the description fills the remaining gaps: pricing eligibility, quota isolation, rate-limit behavior, and the semantic distinction that best_practices never lower the score. Nothing needed to call this correctly 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 100%, so both parameters (url with protocol requirement, include_trackers) are already fully documented, and the description adds nothing about either. Its only related content is a general list of report sections, which does not clarify the tracker-inventory flag. Baseline 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?

"Run an ADA / WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit (axe-core)" names a specific verb, resource, compliance standard and engine, which cleanly separates it from the generic sibling 'audit' and the SEO-oriented 'geo_audit'/'deep_audit' names. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

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 states a hard prerequisite ("Paid plans only") and clarifies quota routing ("ADA audits have their own monthly allowance, separate from the audit quota"), which is real when-to-use context. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it falls just below the top band.

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

All SEO Score API 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