Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
a11y-toolkit

a11y-toolkit

by kinti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

a11y-toolkit: Disprover: re-verify findings

a11y_disprove
Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-run accessibility audits on the live page to confirm or reject each finding, catching false positives and page changes before you act.

Instructions

Disprover pattern (from Cloudflare's security-audit-skill): re-runs the audit against the live page and marks each finding confirmed or rejected — findings that don't reproduce are rejected with the reason. Catches false positives, race conditions, and page changes between audit and report. Returns a fresh score over confirmed findings only. — Run this before acting on any audit report. Returns JSON: {confirmed, rejected, score} — a fresh score over confirmed findings only.

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_disprove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to re-verify against
langNoOutput language (en default)
reportNoexisting audit report (optional; if absent, audits first)
timeoutNoTimeout seconds (30 default)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / informe
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "existing audit report (optional; if absent, audits first)",
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / report
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "existing audit report (optional; if absent, audits first)",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv4.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds real value beyond that: it explains the purpose (catching false positives, race conditions, page-change drift) and that rejected findings carry a reason. It stops short of describing how re-verification is performed or any rate/timeout behavior beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and useful, but the closing sentence duplicates itself: 'Returns a fresh score over confirmed findings only' appears twice, and the stray em-dash separator adds clutter. The core content is tight, but the redundancy is avoidable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the JSON return shape {confirmed, rejected, score}. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly, though the nested report payload is not elaborated.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the optional report object and its fallback-to-audit behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (re-runs the audit) and resource (findings), and describes exactly what it produces: each finding confirmed or rejected. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like a11y_audit_url or a11y_diff, which do not re-verify prior findings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Run this before acting on any audit report,' giving a clear when-to-use trigger. It does not, however, name the specific sibling that generates the report it consumes or state when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools