Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

A11y Audit (ADA Lawsuit-Risk Scan)

by io.github.theharrisontruong-web
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

audit_a11y

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full accessibility lawsuit-risk scan of a website URL (ADA / WCAG triage). Fetches the page server-side and runs 20 weighted checks across image alt text and media captions, form labels and input purpose, page structure (lang, heading order, landmarks, skip link), links and interactive elements (link text, button names, target size, keyboard operability), color contrast (estimated from the page's own CSS) and document basics (title, viewport zoom, focus indicator, ARIA sanity). These are the failure classes plaintiff firms' scanners look for — they appear in ~96% of ADA website complaints. Returns machine-readable JSON: 0-100 score, A-F grade, a lawsuit-risk level (Low/Moderate/Elevated/High) with the failing plaintiff-scan checks named, per-check pass/partial/fail/unknown with evidence, and the top 3 prioritized fixes. HONEST LIMITS: this is an automated triage scan, not a WCAG/ADA compliance certification — automated tools catch roughly 30% of WCAG issues. Cost: $1.50 USDC on Base per call, paid via x402 — the caller's agent pays from its owner's approved wallet; no API key needed. Use this to triage a store's ADA lawsuit exposure before a demand letter arrives, or to scan a client portfolio for accessibility risk.

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": "audit_a11y"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesWebsite URL to scan, e.g. https://example-store.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses what the agent most needs: a $1.50 USDC x402 charge per call drawn from the owner's wallet with no API key, server-side fetching, and the exact return payload shape (score, grade, risk level, per-check evidence, top 3 fixes). It also volunteers an honest limitation that automated scans catch ~30% of WCAG issues, which prevents over-trusting the output.

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?

It is long but dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then check coverage, then output, then cost and limits. The single block paragraph makes the payment and limits details harder to spot than they deserve, but virtually every sentence carries non-redundant information.

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 compensates by describing the return payload; it also covers the cost/auth model and the accuracy caveat. For a one-parameter paid scan tool, nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the URL input. The description adds only that the page is fetched server-side (implying public reachability), which is minor added meaning; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Full accessibility lawsuit-risk scan of a website URL") and enumerates the 20 check categories covered, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It never mentions the sibling 'audit_a11y_lite', so the reader has no explicit basis for choosing between the two beyond guessing from the name.

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?

Clear usage contexts are given: triage a store's ADA exposure before a demand letter, or scan a client portfolio for accessibility risk. No exclusion or alternative route (e.g., when the cheaper lite scan suffices) is stated, so the when-not half of the guidance is absent.

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

All A11y Audit (ADA Lawsuit-Risk Scan) 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