wcagc-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to wcagc-mcp
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides comprehensive access to WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidelines, including all 87 success criteria with full Understanding documentation, 400+ techniques, glossary terms, and ACT test rules from official W3C data.20107 npm13MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables accurate WCAG color contrast checking and accessibility analysis by calculating actual contrast ratios between color pairs, checking compliance levels, and analyzing luminance values for web accessibility.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceValidates text accessibility (contrast, spacing, language) against WCAG 2.1 criteria via modular MCP tools.15 npm2MIT
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform real accessibility audits by controlling a browser, running axe-core scans, reviewing page structure, images, tab order, and WCAG 2.2 color contrast, all over MCP with local session logging.2142 npm1Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides AI agents with web accessibility analysis tools via MCP, enabling checks for alt text, heading hierarchy, color contrast, ARIA validation, and form accessibility.32 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA WCAG accessibility testing MCP for AI agents, Codex, Claude Code, and automated UI audits.755 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets an AI agent scan a web page for WCAG accessibility issues and get back findings it can act on.619 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceExposes axe-core accessibility auditing as MCP tools so any MCP-compatible agent can audit HTML for structural and semantic issues.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for axe-core accessibility audits. Enables scanning URLs or HTML for WCAG violations with impact levels and fix guidance.418 npm1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 16 tools
Most tools are clearly scoped to distinct resources and actions: scan_url/scan_site, check_pdf, run_journey, and verify_fix each have their own dedicated polling tool. The many get_* tools could be confused at a glance, but descriptions explicitly cross-reference which poller to use for each job type.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (scan_url, list_sites, get_run_findings, verify_fix). Paired queue/poll tools are predictably named (check_pdf -> get_pdf_check, run_journey -> get_journey_run), making the set easy to navigate.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool maps to a distinct stage in the scanning pipeline: initiating a job, polling it, retrieving findings, and listing supporting resources. The count feels justified by the breadth of scan types rather than redundant.
The surface covers the core lifecycle for URL scans, full-site runs, PDF checks, journeys, trend history, and fix verification. Minor gaps exist — no site registration/update/delete and no cancellation or re-run operations — but these are likely managed outside the MCP and don't block primary workflows.