A
licenseA
qualityF
maintenanceEnables AI agents to perform conversational accessibility testing with actionable insights, code-level fixes, and support for authenticated sessions and batch audits.
22
13 npm
1
MIT
AccessLens MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to AccessLens MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform real accessibility audits by controlling a browser, running axe-core scans, reviewing page structure, images, tab order, and WCAG 2.2 color contrast, all over MCP with local session logging.21Apache 2.0
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform comprehensive accessibility audits on websites using Playwright and axe-core against WCAG standards. Provides detailed compliance reports with violation summaries and remediation guidance across multiple browsers.3-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides conversational, actionable accessibility testing for AI agents, including auditing, prioritization, and code-level fixes.2218 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables automated web accessibility scanning and browser automation, allowing WCAG compliance checks, page interaction, persistent browser sessions, and detailed accessibility reports with visual annotations.3,085 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables auditing web pages for WCAG violations, applying deterministic fixes and PRs, all through MCP clients like Claude Desktop.7MIT
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Scored across 12 tools
Disambiguation3/5
run_accessibility_review, analyze_accessibility_evidence, and crawl_accessibility_review all trigger overlapping accessibility scans, and crawl is mainly differentiated by multi-page breadth. The descriptions help clarify intent, especially with 'Preferred one-call workflow' on run_accessibility_review, but several advisory tools also duplicate checks already included in the main review.
Naming Consistency5/5
Every tool uses a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: crawl_, run_, analyze_, get_, record_, verify_, and check_. Report, session, review, and fix nouns are used predictably, making the set highly navigable.
Tool Count4/5
Twelve tools is within a reasonable range for an accessibility audit server, but the count feels slightly padded by overlapping review entry points and standalone advisory checks that duplicate capabilities already present in run_accessibility_review. Consolidation would make the set tighter without losing coverage.
Completeness4/5
The scan-to-report-to-human-approval-to-verification lifecycle is well covered, with crawl, session consistency, and aggregate reporting adding useful breadth. Minor gaps like explicit session management or scan-scope configuration exist, but the core workflow has no dead ends.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues