Accessibility MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

audit_group_color

Audit web pages for color-related accessibility issues using three axe-core rules, checking contrast and color-dependent information for WCAG compliance.

Instructions

Audit the 'color' rule group (3 axe rules). Provide one of: url, html, or session_id.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "audit_group_color"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	No
`html`	No
`level`	No	AA
`session_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it uses axe rules and the number of rules, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only), permissions needed, rate limits, or response format beyond what the output schema may cover.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences that directly state purpose and input requirements. No redundant information. Every word contributes, making it highly efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and many siblings, the description covers the essential purpose and input strategy but misses guidance on the 'level' parameter and does not help distinguish this group from other audit_group_* tools. Output schema existence reduces burden for return values.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It states 'Provide one of: url, html, or session_id', which adds the important constraint that exactly one of these three should be provided. However, it does not explain the 'level' parameter or provide details on parameter formats, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states 'Audit the 'color' rule group (3 axe rules)' which specifies the exact verb (audit), resource (color rule group), and scope (3 axe rules). It differentiates from sibling audit_group_* tools by naming the specific group.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for color-related accessibility audits but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other audit_group_* tools or when not to use it. The instruction 'Provide one of: url, html, or session_id' gives invocation guidance but lacks comparative context.

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