Skip to main content
Glama

webability

Scan a page for accessibility issues

scan_page
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan a web page for WCAG accessibility issues. Works on any URL — deployed sites, localhost, staging. Returns the three-tier shape: issues (high-confidence violations safe to fix), incomplete (needs human review — gradient backgrounds, marketing imagery, axe-incomplete results, framer-motion pre-animation states), and a summary. Treat incomplete as questions, never auto-fix them. On React ≤18 / Vue dev builds each issue carries source ({file, line, column, component}) read from the live component tree. Every issue carries a structured fix.op (add-attribute | set-attribute | remove-attribute | add-element | remove-element | add-text-content | suggest) with fix.attribute / fix.value when known, and a fixability tier (mechanical = apply as given; contextual = op known, value needs judgment; visual = needs rendered output, propose only). NOTE: on this HOSTED server, localhost and private addresses are refused — it runs in our cloud and cannot reach your machine. Two ways to scan a local dev server: run the MCP locally (npx -y @webability/mcp, simplest — nothing leaves the machine), or open a tunnel (webability-tunnel --port 3000) and pass its URL as url together with the printed secret as tunnel_secret.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to scan (e.g. https://example.com or http://localhost:3000)
wcagNoOnly these WCAG criteria. A prefix selects the whole guideline ("1.4") or principle ("2").
rulesNoOnly these rule ids (WebAbility type such as "missing_alt" or axe rule id such as "image-alt"). See get_rules.
formatNo"compact" prints one line per element with rule metadata once — far fewer tokens than the default JSON. Default json.
contextYesExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
viewportNoViewport size (default: desktop)
llm_modelYesThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
minImpactNoOnly findings at this severity or above (critical > serious > moderate > minor)
sourceRootNoLocal project root (local installs only). Issues without a framework `source` pointer get `sourceCandidates[]` — files whose contents match the selector's id/class/attribute tokens.
rootSelectorNoCSS selector to limit scan scope (optional)
tunnel_secretNoSecret printed by `webability-tunnel`. Required when `url` is a tunnel URL; the URL alone will be refused by the relay. Ignored otherwise.
conversation_idNoEcho the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.

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?

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive status, yet the description still adds a great deal: the three-tier response shape, the rule to treat `incomplete` as questions and never auto-fix, the `source` pointer availability on React ≤18/Vue dev builds, the `fix.op`/`fixability` tier model, and the hosted-server network restriction. This is substantial context beyond annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with purpose first and the tier/fix model and tunnel guidance following. It is longer than most definitions, but nearly every sentence carries operational value (incomplete handling, fixability tiers, network caveat); minor trimming of the fix.op enumeration is possible.

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 no output schema, the description fully carries the return-shape burden: it names the `issues`/`incomplete`/`summary` tiers, the per-issue `source` and `fix` structures, and fixability tiers. Combined with 100% schema coverage across 12 params, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form. The description adds a bit of behavioral context (tunnel_secret relevance, localhost refusal) but no new syntax, formats, or defaults beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (scan a web page for WCAG accessibility issues) and scopes it to any URL including localhost/staging. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like scan_html or visual_audit by the WCAG/axe framing and the three-tier return shape.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use, and uniquely explains the localhost/private-address refusal plus the two workarounds (local install or tunnel). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish when to pick scan_page over scan_html or flow_scan, so sibling-level guidance is implied rather than stated.

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.