Skip to main content
Glama
kinti

a11y-toolkit

by kinti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

a11y-toolkit: Accessibility statement (EAA/RD 1112)

a11y_generate_declaration
DestructiveIdempotent

Generate an accessible HTML accessibility statement for a website, using Spanish RD 1112/2018 or EU EAA legal wording. Converts audit findings into a compliant legal declaration.

Instructions

Generates an Accessibility Statement in HTML: art. 10 RD 1112/2018 (Spanish public sector, marco="rd1112") or European Accessibility Act wording (Directive (EU) 2019/882 / Ley 11/2023, marco="eaa"; EN output uses Directive (EU) 2016/2102 / EAA wording). The generated document is itself accessible. Saves to output_path when given. — Legal statement generator; drive contenido_no_accesible from audit findings and a11y_evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesWebsite URL the statement covers
langNoStatement language (default en; es uses the Spanish legal wording)
entityYesLegal entity name as it should appear in the statement (company, body…)
metodoNoHow conformance was evaluated (e.g. "self-evaluation: a11y-toolkit screening + manual review")
statusYesCompliance state: plena | parcial | no_conforme (parcial is the honest default when findings exist)
feedbackNoContact channel for accessibility feedback (email or URL)
frameworkNoLegal framework: rd1112 (Spanish public sector, art. 10) or eaa (European Accessibility Act / private sector)
output_pathNosave the HTML here (optional)
reclamacionNoClaim/complaint procedure URL or address (legally required in several jurisdictions)
review_dateNoISO date of the next scheduled review
fecha_evaluacionNoISO date of the last evaluation (YYYY-MM-DD)
inaccessible_contentNoNon-accessible content list: one string per item, ideally criterion + reason + alternative
disponibilidad_alternativaNoWhere to get the content in an alternative accessible format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv5.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / contenido_no_accesible
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Non-accessible content list: one string per item, ideally criterion + reason + alternative",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / entidad
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Legal entity name as it should appear in the statement (company, body…)",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / entity
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Legal entity name as it should appear in the statement (company, body…)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / estado
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Compliance state: plena | parcial | no_conforme (parcial is the honest default when findings exist)",
-  "enum": [
-    "plena",
-    "parcial",
-    "no_conforme"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / fecha_revision
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ISO date of the next scheduled review",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / framework
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Legal framework: rd1112 (Spanish public sector, art. 10) or eaa (European Accessibility Act / private sector)",
+  "enum": [
+    "rd1112",
+    "eaa"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / inaccessible_content
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Non-accessible content list: one string per item, ideally criterion + reason + alternative",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / marco
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Legal framework: rd1112 (Spanish public sector, art. 10) or eaa (European Accessibility Act / private sector)",
-  "enum": [
-    "rd1112",
-    "eaa"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / review_date
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO date of the next scheduled review",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / status
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Compliance state: plena | parcial | no_conforme (parcial is the honest default when findings exist)",
+  "enum": [
+    "plena",
+    "parcial",
+    "no_conforme"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "entidad",
-  "url",
-  "estado"
-]New value: +[
+  "entity",
+  "url",
+  "status"
+]
  2. Changed12 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / contenido_no_accesible / description
      Added value: +"Non-accessible content list: one string per item, ideally criterion + reason + alternative"
    • addedInput schema / properties / disponibilidad_alternativa / description
      Added value: +"Where to get the content in an alternative accessible format"
    • addedInput schema / properties / entidad / description
      Added value: +"Legal entity name as it should appear in the statement (company, body…)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / estado / description
      Added value: +"Compliance state: plena | parcial | no_conforme (parcial is the honest default when findings exist)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fecha_evaluacion / description
      Added value: +"ISO date of the last evaluation (YYYY-MM-DD)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fecha_revision / description
      Added value: +"ISO date of the next scheduled review"
    • addedInput schema / properties / feedback / description
      Added value: +"Contact channel for accessibility feedback (email or URL)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / lang / description
      Added value: +"Statement language (default en; es uses the Spanish legal wording)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / marco / description
      Added value: +"Legal framework: rd1112 (Spanish public sector, art. 10) or eaa (European Accessibility Act / private sector)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / metodo / description
      Added value: +"How conformance was evaluated (e.g. \"self-evaluation: a11y-toolkit screening + manual review\")"
    • addedInput schema / properties / reclamacion / description
      Added value: +"Claim/complaint procedure URL or address (legally required in several jurisdictions)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"Website URL the statement covers"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / lang / description
      Removed value: -"Idioma de la declaración (es por defecto; en = Directive (EU) 2016/2102 / EAA wording)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / output_path / description
      Previous value: -"Guarda el HTML en esta ruta (opcional)"New value: +"save the HTML here (optional)"
  4. First observedv2.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on these. It does say the generated document is 'accessible' and that it 'saves to output_path when given', which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain what destructive actions might occur (e.g., overwriting files) or specifics about idempotency. The description adds some value but not deeply.

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 two sentences, but the first is quite long and packed with information. It front-loads the action and legal frameworks, then adds a brief usage note. Every part is informative, though the sentence is dense; it could be split for readability, but it's still efficient.

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?

Given 13 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the tool's output (HTML statement, accessible) and hints at the workflow (drive from audit findings). It doesn't explain return values, but that's less critical since it saves to output_path. It also mentions legal frameworks and language options, covering the main context an agent needs.

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 all parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds some context by mentioning 'marco' (which corresponds to framework) and specifically calling out 'contenido_no_accesible' as a key for driving from audit findings, which provides usage meaning beyond the schema. But most parameters are self-explanatory, so the description adds marginal value.

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 that the tool generates an Accessibility Statement in HTML, with specific legal frameworks (RD 1112/2018 and EAA), and mentions key fields like marco and output_path. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on statement generation, which is unique among the listed tools (siblings are for auditing, contrast, etc.), so it is distinct. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, but the uniqueness is clear from the context.

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?

The description implies that the tool is used for generating legal accessibility statements and mentions 'drive contenido_no_accesible from audit findings and a11y_evidence', linking it to audit tools. It gives context for when to use it (after audits) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The implicit usage context is strong enough for an agent to infer its role.

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