Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
a11y-toolkit

a11y-toolkit

by kinti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

a11y-toolkit: WCAG 3 draft preview (no score)

a11y_wcag3_preview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-groups WCAG 2.2 audit findings under WCAG 3 draft outcomes to show where today's issues will land tomorrow. Returns informative JSON with no score or conformance claim.

Instructions

WCAG 3 demo — the view layer nobody ships: takes an audit report and re-groups its WCAG 2.2 findings under the outcomes of the WCAG 3 Working Draft (10 September 2026). Informative only: WCAG 3 is not a completed standard, the W3C has published no official WCAG 2 to WCAG 3 mapping (this one is curated and labeled as such), and NO score, tier or conformance claim is produced — the draft's tier thresholds are still TBD. Use it to show teams where today's 2.2 findings will land tomorrow; keep auditing against WCAG 2.2. Returns JSON: {mode, draft, disclaimer, mapping_note, no_score, conformance_model, outcomes [{outcome, draft_url, findings, severity, signals, criteria_22}], counts, unmapped} — never a score. Run after any audit when the team asks "what about WCAG 3?"; re-baseline on each W3C draft publication (roughly March/September).

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": {
      "report": "<report>"
    },
    "name": "a11y_wcag3_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoOutput language (en default)
reportYesaudit report object with a findings list (from a11y_audit_url, a11y_audit_dom, a11y_disprove, …)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv5.14.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations: informative-only status, no official W3C mapping (curated and labeled as such), no score/tier/conformance claim, TBD tier thresholds, and the unmapped bucket for findings that don't map. Annotations already cover safety; the description adds the epistemic caveats an agent must convey to a user.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the no-score caveat before the return shape. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the 'no score' point is asserted three times (not a completed standard, no conformance claim, never a score), which is slight redundancy.

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 supplies the full return shape (mode, draft, disclaimer, mapping_note, outcomes with nested fields, counts, unmapped) and documents the no-score invariant. Nothing an agent needs to call it or report results correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including enum values for lang and the provenance of report (from a11y_audit_url, a11y_audit_dom, a11y_disprove). The description adds no syntax or shape detail for report beyond what the schema says, 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 and resource: it takes an audit report and re-groups WCAG 2.2 findings under WCAG 3 Working Draft outcomes. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (a11y_audit_url, a11y_disprove, a11y_evidence) because it is a mapping/preview layer, not an auditor.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Run after any audit when the team asks "what about WCAG 3?"'), an explicit counter-instruction ('keep auditing against WCAG 2.2'), and re-baseline cadence (roughly March/September per W3C draft). The exclusion of scoring/conformance use is stated outright.

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