Checks the accessibility status of websites and reports compliance issues.
Show wcag/accessibility inspection configuration / health.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "a11y_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, whether it makes network calls, or what 'health' entails. No detail about the nature of the configuration or health check is given.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the purpose. However, it is so terse that it lacks specificity about the output or scope, but for a simple status tool it is appropriately concise without being bloated.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'configuration / health' means or what the response will contain. It does not. For a tool with siblings that perform different actions, it would benefit from more context on what distinguishes 'showing status' from 'analyzing' or 'checking'. It is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since there are none.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('wcag/accessibility inspection configuration / health'), conveying the tool's purpose as a read-only status view. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like a11y_analyze, a11y_check, or a11y_report, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope of 'health' vs. other operations.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this over a11y_check or a11y_analyze. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.