stitch-pro-mcp

Accessibility Audit

sp_a11y

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit HTML for WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility issues and automatically fix contrast, semantics, ARIA, and touch target violations.

Instructions

Run WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on HTML and auto-fix issues (contrast, semantics, ARIA, touch targets)

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": {
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "sp_a11y"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`html`	Yes	HTML to audit for accessibility
`autoFix`	No	Automatically fix issues where possible

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only operation. The description adds 'auto-fix issues' which might imply mutation, but could be interpreted as returning fixed HTML without side effects. There is no explicit contradiction, but more clarity on the auto-fix behavior would improve 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 sentence of 13 words, no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (audit with auto-fix) and no output schema, the description could include what the tool returns (e.g., a report or fixed HTML). It lacks this information, making it slightly incomplete for agents to fully understand the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100% and parameters are well-documented. The description adds context about audit scope (contrast, semantics, ARIA, touch targets) but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 runs a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on HTML and can auto-fix issues, listing specific areas like contrast, semantics, ARIA, and touch targets. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like sp_analyze which might perform general analysis.

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 use when an accessibility audit is needed on HTML, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it, nor does it compare with sibling tools like sp_auto. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server