Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
a11y-toolkit

a11y-toolkit

by kinti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

a11y-toolkit: Coverage ledger (persistent)

a11y_ledger

Persistently record accessibility audit results, surface unchecked criteria per URL, and summarize portfolio progress across runs to track resolved findings and plan next audits.

Instructions

Coverage ledger (from Cloudflare's security-audit-skill): persistent record of what has been audited, when, and with what result. Actions: record (add audit result), gaps (what has never been checked on a URL), summary (portfolio overview). Accumulates across runs — second audits show resolved findings. record returns the stored entry; gaps returns criteria never checked; summary returns {entries, active_signals, resolved, mean_score}. record after every audit run; gaps before planning the next pass. The ledger file accumulates across runs — give each project its own ledger_path.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "a11y_ledger"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoURL (for record/gaps)
langNoNotes language (en default)
actionYesWhat to do
reportNoaudit report object (for record)
ledger_pathNoledger file path (default: a11y-ledger.json)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv5.27.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / lang
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Notes language (en default)",
+  "enum": [
+    "en",
+    "es"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / informe
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "audit report object (for record)",
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / report
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "audit report object (for record)",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Addedv4.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key non-obvious behavior: the ledger file accumulates across runs, later audits show resolved findings, and each project needs its own ledger_path to avoid cross-contamination. That is real value not captured by readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false, and nothing conflicts with them.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with the purpose, then actions, then return values, then usage timing, then the ledger_path caveat. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; a bulleted action list would have made it slightly faster to scan.

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

Completeness5/5

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 spelling out what each action returns (stored entry, never-checked criteria, and the {entries, active_signals, resolved, mean_score} summary) and how the persistent file behaves. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains that ledger_path scopes the ledger per project and that url and report apply to specific actions (record/gaps). Only the lang parameter goes unmentioned in prose.

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 names the concrete resource (a persistent coverage ledger) and enumerates its three actions (record, gaps, summary) with a one-line effect for each. It is easy to distinguish from the audit siblings because it clearly stores results rather than performing checks, though it never names a specific sibling to route against.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: 'record after every audit run; gaps before planning the next pass,' which tells the agent when to reach for two of the three actions. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for the actual auditing work.

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