Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
accessibility-mcp-server

accessibility-mcp-server

by AiAgentKarl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

check_heading_structure

Check heading hierarchy for WCAG 1.3.1 compliance, including H1 uniqueness, no skipped levels, and empty headings.

Instructions

Analysiert die Ueberschriften-Hierarchie einer Webseite nach WCAG 1.3.1.

Prueft: H1-Einzigartigkeit, keine Hierarchie-Spruenge, leere Ueberschriften.

Args: url: Zu pruefende URL

Returns: Ueberschriften-Baum und alle gefundenen Probleme

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_heading_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions three specific checks and a returned tree+problems, but lacks details on how the page is fetched, performance, error handling, or limitations.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: first states purpose and checks, second lists Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers main purpose and key checks. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return structure. Could mention prerequisites or error behavior, but overall adequate for a focused 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 has 0% coverage for the 'url' parameter. The description adds 'Zu pruefende URL' (URL to test), which provides basic meaning but no format or constraints, doing the minimum to compensate.

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 tool analyzes heading hierarchy per WCAG 1.3.1, listing specific checks (H1 uniqueness, no jumps, empty headings). This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_color_contrast or check_form_labels.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations. While the description implies use for heading structure validation, it does not guide the agent on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools