accessibility-mcp-server

check_form_labels

Check form elements on a webpage for accessible labels (WCAG 3.3.2). Identify form inputs missing proper labels to improve web accessibility.

Instructions

Prueft alle Formular-Elemente einer Webseite auf zugaengliche Labels (WCAG 3.3.2).

Args: url: Zu pruefende URL

Returns: Alle Formular-Elemente mit Label-Status

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": "check_form_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic check. It does not state limitations (e.g., static pages, invisible elements) or dependencies (e.g., JavaScript execution), leaving the agent with minimal understanding of 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the essential purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear. However, the Returns section is vague ('all form elements with label status'), missing detail that could have been included concisely. No extraneous text.

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 tool's single parameter and existing output schema, the description provides only the high-level purpose and return type. It lacks details about detection methodology, what constitutes an accessible label, handling of dynamic content, or edge cases. This leaves the agent underinformed for effective use.

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?

The parameter 'url' lacks description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description adds only 'URL to test' in the Args section, which is tautological and adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type. The tool fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool checks all form elements for accessible labels per WCAG 3.3.2, with a specific verb (checks) and resource (form elements). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like color contrast or heading structure.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of specific conditions like dynamic content or required JavaScript.

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

Deploy Server