Skip to main content
Glama

check_a11y

Analyze UI accessibility by evaluating theme contrast, control labeling, and text legibility using APCA and WCAG 2 standards, returning a structured report of failures.

Instructions

Check accessibility of a UI from the real render: theme contrast, labeling of every interactive control, and per-text-node APCA + WCAG 2 legibility. text_contrast_failures lists nodes failing the strict body-text floor even when the theme verdict is legible (catching authored low-contrast text). Returns a structured report; this is a normal result whether or not it passes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNo
themeNo
descriptionYesThe UI description: a `fenestra/1` JSON object.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
legibleYesTrue when the theme reports no contrast violations — its calibrated legibility contract. See `node_legibility` for the strict per-node detail.
unlabeledNoInteractive nodes with no accessible name.
node_legibilityNoPer-text-node legibility measurements.
contrast_violationsNoTheme role pairs that fall short of their APCA floor.
text_contrast_failuresNoText nodes that fail the strict per-node APCA floor, measured on real resolved colours. Surfaced even when `legible` is true: the theme's calibrated contract uses a relaxed floor for filled-control labels, so an authored low-contrast text run would otherwise pass silently. The honest per-node evidence behind a strict legibility gate.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses specific checks (contrast, labeling, legibility), mentions the text_contrast_failures special behavior, and states that results are always a normal report. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action and adds a necessary clarification about text contrast failures and return type, efficiently using every word.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple checks, 3 parameters, output schema exists), the description explains the return type and a special case but fails to describe the size and theme parameters. It is partially complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (only description has a description). The tool description does not clarify the size and theme parameters, which are left undocumented. The description's contribution is limited to the overall tool purpose.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'accessibility of a UI', and details the aspects checked (contrast, labeling, APCA+WCAG legibility), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like check_layout.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The phrase 'Returns a structured report...' implies it's for assessing accessibility but lacks explicit guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/richer-richard/fenestra'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server