Takes scan results and generates specific code fixes for each accessibility violation. Returns ready-to-apply code patches and a copy-paste summary for Claude Code or Replit Agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | The scan_id returned by scan_accessibility | |
| framework | No | The frontend framework of the codebase being fixed | html |
| anthropic_api_key | Yes | Your Anthropic API key (used only for this request, never stored) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so description's statement that API key is 'never stored' adds value but does not contradict annotations. No other behavioral details disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no fluff. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description mentions output types (patches, summary). Somewhat complete but could detail patch format. Good for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, only clarifying API key usage. Baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool generates code fixes from scan results, with specific outputs (code patches and summary). Distinguishes from siblings: scan_accessibility performs scans, generate_vpat generates reports, re_verify re-verifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage after scan_accessibility via 'Takes scan results', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of sibling tools or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning, generating fixes, generating VPAT reports, and re-verifying. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (scan_accessibility, generate_fixes, generate_vpat, re_verify). The naming is predictable and uniform.
With 4 tools covering the core workflow of scanning, fixing, reporting, and re-verification, the count is well-scoped and no tools feel redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: scan accessibility issues, generate fixes, re-verify after fixes, and generate a VPAT report. No obvious gaps for the domain.
