a11y_headings
Extract heading outline from HTML.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes |
a11y-scorer
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not explain the output format, how invalid HTML is handled, or whether the outline is nested or flattened. This is a minimal disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one param) but without an output schema, the description leaves the term 'heading outline' undefined. An agent may not know if the output is a list, a nested tree, or what heading levels are included. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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 never mentions the 'html' parameter. The tool name and description imply that the parameter is the HTML input, but the description adds no concrete semantics about the parameter's format, requirements, or role beyond what the schema already states (name/type).
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 'Extract' with a clear resource 'heading outline from HTML', which precisely states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like a11y_audit_url and a11y_contrast by focusing on heading extraction.
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 usage—use this to extract heading outlines—but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not name any alternative tools or mention when one might choose a different a11y tool.
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.