@mhdd_24/accessibility-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

a11y_report

Generate WCAG accessibility inspection reports for websites by analyzing a given URL. Identifies compliance issues and provides actionable feedback.

Instructions

Generate a wcag/accessibility inspection report.

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": "a11y_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	URL
`options`	No	Options JSON/text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Generate a report' without specifying what the report contains, whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, or any other behavioral details. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no wasted words, but it is too terse to be highly effective, missing essential context that would make it more helpful.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the report returns and any relevant behavior. It does not, leaving the agent without information about the tool's output or side effects. The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both url and options having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action (generate) and a specific resource (wcag/accessibility inspection report). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like a11y_analyze, a11y_check, or a11y_status, which likely also relate to accessibility, so an agent cannot easily choose between them based on this description alone.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over the sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server