Check any URL or CSS selector for WCAG accessibility issues. Get a compliance report to fix web accessibility problems.
Quick wcag/accessibility inspection check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | URL or selector |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'inspection check' without explaining what happens, what the output is, or any side effects. This is severely lacking for a tool that presumably performs an analysis.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it's under-specified and doesn't structure any additional useful information. It's more a placeholder than a helpful definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to convey what the check entails, how results are returned, or any relevant context. It's incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (target: 'URL or selector'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('check') and resource ('accessibility'), but it's vague and doesn't differentiate from siblings like a11y_analyze or a11y_report. It lacks specificity about what kind of check or its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The word 'Quick' hints at a lightweight option, but there's no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.