What can you do with this server?

The A11y MCP Server enables LLMs to perform comprehensive web accessibility testing using Axe-core and Puppeteer. Key capabilities include: * Test live web pages - Analyze any public URL for accessibility issues and WCAG compliance violations * Test HTML snippets - Evaluate raw HTML strings for accessibility problems without needing a live URL * WCAG compliance testing - Check content against various WCAG standards (2.0, 2.1, 2.2 at levels A, AA, AAA) with customizable tag filtering * Color contrast analysis - Verify if foreground/background color combinations meet WCAG contrast requirements for different font sizes and weights * ARIA attribute validation - Ensure ARIA attributes are being used correctly in HTML content * Orientation lock detection - Identify if content forces specific screen orientations (portrait/landscape) * Rule exploration - Get detailed information about available Axe-core accessibility rules with optional filtering * Detailed violation reports - Receive comprehensive JSON-formatted results including violations, passes, affected nodes, impact levels, descriptions, and remediation guidance

Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides instructions for configuring the MCP server on Linux through Claude's settings files Explains how to configure the MCP server on macOS by editing the Claude Desktop configuration file Uses Puppeteer to automate browser testing for web accessibility by loading and analyzing web pages

How do I use A11y MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@A11y MCP Server test our homepage https://example.com for WCAG 2.1 compliance" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

de en es ja ko ru zh

A11y MCP Server

by ronantakizawa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Hybrid

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/316c6d44-e677-433e-b4d5-63630b4bab2b

A11y MCP is an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that gives LLMs access to web accessibility testing APIs.

This server uses the Deque Axe-core API and Puppeteer to allow LLMs to analyze web content for WCAG compliance and identify accessibility issues.

Note: This is not an official MCP server from Deque Labs.

Features

Test web pages: Test any public URL for accessibility issues with customizable viewport dimensions
Test HTML snippets: Test raw HTML strings for accessibility issues
WCAG compliance testing: Check content against various WCAG standards (2.0, 2.1, 2.2)
Customizable tests: Specify which accessibility tags/standards to test against
Rule exploration: Get information about available accessibility rules
Color contrast analysis: Check color combinations for WCAG compliance
ARIA validation: Test proper usage of ARIA attributes
Orientation lock detection: Identify content that forces specific screen orientations

Related MCP server: @accesslint/mcp

Installation

Prerequisites

Node.js 18 or later
An MCP-compatible client (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, VS Code, Cursor, etc.)

Claude Desktop

Edit your MCP configuration file:

macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Add the server to the mcpServers object:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "a11y-accessibility": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "a11y-mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

Claude Code (CLI)

claude mcp add a11y-accessibility -- npx -y a11y-mcp-server

This registers the server for the current project. To make it available across all projects:

claude mcp add --scope user a11y-accessibility -- npx -y a11y-mcp-server

Verify the server is registered:

claude mcp list

Note: MCP tools become available after restarting your Claude Code session.

VS Code (Copilot)

Add to your VS Code settings.json or .vscode/settings.json:

{
  "mcp": {
    "servers": {
      "a11y-accessibility": {
        "command": "npx",
        "args": ["-y", "a11y-mcp-server"]
      }
    }
  }
}

Cursor

Add to your Cursor MCP configuration (.cursor/mcp.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "a11y-accessibility": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "a11y-mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

Windsurf

Add to your Windsurf MCP configuration (~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "a11y-accessibility": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "a11y-mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

Available Tools

test_accessibility

Tests a URL for accessibility issues.

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The URL of the web page to test
`tags`	No	Array of WCAG tags to test against (e.g., `["wcag2aa"]`)
`width`	No	Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280)
`height`	No	Viewport height in pixels (default: 800)

Example — desktop viewport (default):

{
  "url": "https://example.com",
  "tags": ["wcag2aa"]
}

Example — mobile viewport (iPhone 12/13):

{
  "url": "https://example.com",
  "tags": ["wcag2aa"],
  "width": 390,
  "height": 844
}

test_html_string

Tests an HTML string for accessibility issues.

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
`html`	Yes	The HTML content to test
`tags`	No	Array of WCAG tags to test against (e.g., `["wcag2aa"]`)
`width`	No	Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280)
`height`	No	Viewport height in pixels (default: 800)

Example — default viewport:

{
  "html": "<div><img src='image.jpg'></div>",
  "tags": ["wcag2aa"]
}

Example — mobile viewport:

{
  "html": "<div><img src='image.jpg'></div>",
  "tags": ["wcag2aa"],
  "width": 375,
  "height": 812
}

get_rules

Get information about available accessibility rules with optional filtering. Returns an array of rule objects, each containing ruleId, description, help, helpUrl, and tags.

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Filter rules by tags (e.g., `["wcag2a", "wcag2aa", "best-practice"]`)

Example — filter rules by WCAG 2.1 AA:

{
  "tags": ["wcag21aa"]
}

Example — get all rules (no filter):

{}

check_color_contrast

Check if a foreground and background color combination meets WCAG contrast requirements.

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
`foreground`	Yes	Foreground color (e.g., `"#000000"`, `"rgb(0,0,0)"`)
`background`	Yes	Background color (e.g., `"#FFFFFF"`, `"rgb(255,255,255)"`)
`fontSize`	No	Font size in pixels (default: 16)
`isBold`	No	Whether the text is bold (default: false)

Example:

{
  "foreground": "#777777",
  "background": "#EEEEEE",
  "fontSize": 16,
  "isBold": false
}

check_aria_attributes

Check if ARIA attributes are used correctly in HTML.

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
`html`	Yes	HTML content to test for ARIA attribute usage

Example:

{
  "html": "<div role='button' aria-pressed='false'>Click me</div>"
}

check_orientation_lock

Check if content forces a specific orientation.

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
`html`	Yes	HTML content to test for orientation lock issues

Example:

{
  "html": "<html><head><meta name='viewport' content='width=device-width, orientation=portrait'></head><body>Content</body></html>"
}

Response Format

The server returns accessibility test results in structured JSON:

{
  "violations": [
    {
      "id": "color-contrast",
      "impact": "serious",
      "description": "Ensure the contrast between foreground and background colors meets WCAG 2 AA minimum contrast ratio thresholds",
      "help": "Elements must meet minimum color contrast ratio thresholds",
      "helpUrl": "https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/color-contrast",
      "affectedNodes": [
        {
          "html": "<div style=\"color: #aaa; background-color: #eee;\">Low contrast text</div>",
          "target": ["div"],
          "failureSummary": "Fix any of the following: Element has insufficient color contrast of 1.98 (foreground color: #aaa, background color: #eee, font size: 12.0pt, font weight: normal)"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "passes": 1,
  "incomplete": 0,
  "inapplicable": 2,
  "timestamp": "2025-04-25T16:45:33.655Z",
  "url": "about:blank",
  "testEngine": {
    "name": "axe-core",
    "version": "4.10.3"
  }
}

WCAG Tags Reference

Common tags you can use with the tags parameter:

Tag	Description
`wcag2a`	WCAG 2.0 Level A
`wcag2aa`	WCAG 2.0 Level AA
`wcag2aaa`	WCAG 2.0 Level AAA
`wcag21a`	WCAG 2.1 Level A
`wcag21aa`	WCAG 2.1 Level AA
`wcag22aa`	WCAG 2.2 Level AA
`best-practice`	Best practices (not strictly WCAG)

Dependencies

License

MIT

Available Tools

6 tools

check_aria_attributesC

Check if ARIA attributes are used correctly in HTML

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`html`	Yes	HTML content to test for ARIA attribute usage

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks ARIA attribute correctness but does not describe what 'correctly' entails, the output format, error handling, or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, direct sentence: 'Check if ARIA attributes are used correctly in HTML.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, avoids redundancy, and uses minimal words to convey essential information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not explain what constitutes correct ARIA usage, the format of results, or any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'html' parameter clearly documented as 'HTML content to test for ARIA attribute usage.' The description adds no additional semantic details beyond this, such as examples of valid HTML or constraints on input size. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if ARIA attributes are used correctly in HTML.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('ARIA attributes'), and context ('in HTML'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_accessibility' or 'test_html_string', which might have overlapping accessibility testing functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'check_color_contrast' or 'get_rules', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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

check_color_contrastA

Check if a foreground and background color combination meets WCAG contrast requirements

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`background`	Yes	Background color in various formats (e.g., "#FFFFFF", "#FFF", "rgb(255,255,255)", "hsv(0,0%,100%)")
`fontSize`	No	Font size in pixels
`foreground`	Yes	Foreground color in various formats (e.g., "#000000", "#000", "rgb(0,0,0)", "hsv(0,0%,0%)")
`isBold`	No	Whether the text is bold

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does (checking WCAG contrast requirements), it doesn't describe what specific WCAG levels are checked (AA/AAA), whether the tool provides detailed failure reasons, what the return format looks like, or any performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward validation tool and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (color contrast validation with 4 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide information about return values, error conditions, or specific WCAG criteria checked. The description would need to do more heavy lifting to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Check if...meets WCAG contrast requirements') and identifies the resources involved ('foreground and background color combination'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'check_aria_attributes' or 'test_html_string' by focusing specifically on color contrast validation rather than broader accessibility testing.

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 context (WCAG compliance checking for color combinations) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_accessibility' or 'get_rules'. No guidance is provided about when NOT to use this tool or about prerequisites for effective use.

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

check_orientation_lockC

Check if content forces a specific orientation

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`html`	Yes	HTML content to test for orientation lock issues

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('check if content forces a specific orientation') without detailing behavioral traits such as what 'forces' means, how orientation is determined, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence: 'Check if content forces a specific orientation.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a report, or error messages), how orientation lock is detected, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'html' parameter clearly documented as 'HTML content to test for orientation lock issues.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if content forces a specific orientation.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('content') and the specific issue ('orientation lock'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_accessibility' or 'test_html_string,' which might also involve content testing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'test_accessibility' or 'test_html_string,' nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. The tool's purpose is clear, but usage context 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.

get_rulesC

Get information about available accessibility rules with optional filtering

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No	Filter rules by these tags (e.g., "wcag2a", "wcag2aa", "best-practice")

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose and key feature ('optional filtering') without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data about accessibility rules. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like error handling. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'tags' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds 'optional filtering', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already specified. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but no extra value is added.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about available accessibility rules'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'test_accessibility' or 'check_aria_attributes', which might also involve accessibility rules, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes 'optional filtering', which implies some context for usage, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

test_accessibilityC

Test a webpage for accessibility issues using Axe-core

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No	Optional array of accessibility tags to test (e.g., "wcag2a", "wcag2aa", "wcag21a")
`url`	Yes	URL of the webpage to test

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about execution time, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful test. For a tool that performs analysis on external URLs, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a tool that performs accessibility testing on webpages with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how issues are reported, whether the tool performs full-page analysis or sampling, or any limitations of the Axe-core engine. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial analysis tool that needs more complete documentation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between URL and tags, provide examples of tag usage, or clarify testing scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('a webpage for accessibility issues'), and mentions the technology used ('using Axe-core'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_color_contrast' or 'test_html_string', which appear to be related accessibility testing functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_html_string' or 'check_color_contrast'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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

test_html_stringB

Test an HTML string for accessibility issues

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`html`	Yes	HTML content to test
`tags`	No	Optional array of accessibility tags to test (e.g., "wcag2a", "wcag2aa", "wcag21a")

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Test' implies a read-only analysis operation, the description doesn't specify what happens during testing, what kind of output to expect, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the basic purpose.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a testing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about what the testing entails, what results to expect, and how it differs from related tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 clearly states the action ('Test') and resource ('HTML string for accessibility issues'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_accessibility' or 'check_aria_attributes', which appear to be related accessibility testing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_accessibility' or the various 'check_' tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools on the server.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

6 tool updatesv1.0.0Aug 15, 2025
- First observedcheck_aria_attributes
- First observedcheck_color_contrast
- First observedcheck_orientation_lock
- First observedget_rules
- First observedtest_accessibility
- First observedtest_html_string

Deploy Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 10:15 across 6 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking specific ARIA attributes, color contrast, orientation lock, retrieving rule information, testing webpages, and testing HTML strings. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., check_aria_attributes, test_accessibility). This predictability enhances readability and usability without any deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for accessibility testing, covering key areas like ARIA, color contrast, orientation, rule retrieval, and testing methods. Each tool earns its place without feeling thin or bloated, aligning perfectly with the domain's needs.

Completeness4/5

The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for accessibility testing, including specific checks, rule information, and testing capabilities. A minor gap exists in lacking explicit tools for remediation or detailed reporting, but core workflows are fully supported, allowing agents to work effectively.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

mcp AOAuth
io.scorecard
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
RAG Systems Monitoring Testing & QA Tools
3
jumpcloud-genaiOAuth
com.jumpcloud
An MCP server that provides an API to LLMs to manage their JumpCloud resources.
Cloud Platforms Security Developer Tools
2
anotherai
dev.anotherai
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents Testing & QA Tools
2
a11y-scorer A
io.github.lazymac2x
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: a11y-scorer
Developer Tools Testing & QA Tools
42

Related MCP Servers

a11y-mcp
Web Scraping App Automation Testing & QA Tools
priyankark
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for performing accessibility audits on webpages using axe-core. Use the results in an agentic loop with your favorite AI assistants (Cline/Cursor/GH Copilot) and let them fix a11y issues for you!
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-22 15:23 UTC)
2
228
52
Mozilla Public 2.0
@accesslint/mcpofficial
Testing & QA Tools Developer Tools
AccessLint
A
license
A
quality
F
maintenance
An MCP server for WCAG accessibility auditing in AI coding agents, providing tools to audit HTML, files, URLs, and diffs, plus a prompt for React component auditing.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-16 23:05 UTC)
5
2,946
6
MIT
accessibility-scanner-mcp
Browser Automation Testing & QA Tools
Bishop81
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
An MCP server that lets an AI agent scan a web page for WCAG accessibility issues and get back findings it can act on.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-03 12:51 UTC)
88
MIT
axe-devtools-mcp
Browser Automation Testing & QA Tools
Ravindrabisht12
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
MCP server for axe-core accessibility audits. Enables scanning URLs or HTML for WCAG violations with impact levels and fix guidance.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-01 11:22 UTC)
4
23
1
MIT

Appeared in Searches

An in-memory data store for caching and message brokering

Web Accessibility-Testing MCP Server (A11y MCP)

Features

Installation

Prerequisites

Claude Desktop

Claude Code (CLI)

VS Code (Copilot)

Cursor

Windsurf

Available Tools

test_accessibility

test_html_string

get_rules

check_color_contrast

check_aria_attributes

check_orientation_lock

Response Format

WCAG Tags Reference

Dependencies

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

@accesslint/mcpofficial

Appeared in Searches