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

eds-mcp-server

by Edwson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Audit accessibility

audit_accessibility

Static audit of a component's accessibility contract, verifying error states, color tokens for both themes, reduced-motion guard, regulatory anchor, and per-token contrast ratios.

Instructions

Static accessibility audit of a component against its contract: a11y contract present, error state declared (status in words not colour alone), every colour token defined for both themes in lock-step, reduced-motion guard, regulatory anchor — plus a per-token contrast read in both themes. Verifies the contract, not a running DOM.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "audit_accessibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.17.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by stating it's static and verifies a contract, not a live DOM. However, it omits side effects, permissions, or return format, leaving gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is dense and somewhat verbose, packing many details into two sentences. It is structured but could be more concise.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what it checks but not the required input, output format, or usage steps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 1 parameter (id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or its meaning, failing to add value beyond the schema.

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 it performs a static accessibility audit of a component against its contract, listing specific verifications like a11y contract, error state, color tokens, reduced motion, and contrast. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as contrast_report or compliance_check.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It implies usage for static contract verification but lacks exclusions or context for selecting it over other tools.

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