a11y_contrast
Evaluate WCAG color contrast for a foreground/background pair.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bg | Yes | ||
| fg | Yes | ||
| bold | No | ||
| fontSize | No |
a11y-scorer
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose, not what the tool returns (ratio vs. pass/fail), how bold/fontSize affect thresholds, or accepted color formats.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent would lack critical details about output format, parameter semantics, and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only maps 'foreground/background pair' to fg/bg. It does not explain the optional bold/fontSize parameters or expected input formats, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') with a clear resource ('WCAG color contrast') and scope ('foreground/background pair'). This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools, making the purpose immediately clear.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you have a foreground/background pair to check), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct input or aspect: raw HTML, URL fetching, color contrast, and heading extraction. No two tools overlap in function, making selection straightforward.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the a11y_ prefix and use a clear pattern. audit_html and audit_url are verb-object, while contrast and headings are noun-like, but the convention is still readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is a focused, manageable set for an accessibility scoring server. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
Completeness4/5
The general audits (HTML/URL) provide broad WCAG coverage, with contrast and headings as common focused checks. Minor gaps exist for other sub-checks like form labels or ARIA validation, but the core workflow is well-served.