Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to vertaaux-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that exposes a design system and UX rulebook as tools, enabling AI to generate UI consistent with your design tokens, components, layout rules, accessibility guidelines, and templates. It also provides a review tool to score UI proposals against the design system.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Self-hosted design audit MCP server that reviews UI code against Nielsen's heuristics and an accessibility rubric, returning scores and fixable findings. It also enables verifying previously flagged issues against updated code.
      33 npm
      BSD 4-Clause "Original" or "Old"
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server for web accessibility testing that enables scanning, auditing, and fixing WCAG, ADA, and other compliance issues directly from your IDE, with free local scans, AI-generated framework-aware fixes, and verification capabilities.
      14
      44 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for performing accessibility audits on webpages using axe-core. Use the results in an agentic loop with your favorite AI assistants (Cline/Cursor/GH Copilot) and let them fix a11y issues for you!
      2
      556 npm
      52
      Mozilla Public 2.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides comprehensive UX best practices covering accessibility, usability, UI patterns, design systems, performance, and more, enabling clients to analyze and generate UX-optimized code and recommendations.
      23
      97 npm
      29
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 29 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have distinct purposes, but some pairs (e.g., audit_url vs audit_a11y, suggest_fix vs generate_patch) could cause confusion despite clear descriptions. The 'vs' notes help, but the sheer number of tools increases ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., audit_url, create_schedule, delete_webhook). No mixing of styles or irregular names.

    Tool Count3/5

    29 tools is on the high side for a domain that could be covered with fewer. While the set is comprehensive, some tools are deprecated or legacy, and the count feels slightly bloated.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full lifecycle of accessibility auditing: running audits (multiple types), retrieving results, explaining findings, generating fixes, creating PRs, scheduling, diffing, webhooks, quota management, and even competitor analysis. No obvious gaps.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues