Skip to main content
Glama
snayyar00

@webability/mcp

by snayyar00

verify_fix

Re-scan a specific element after applying an accessibility fix to confirm the violation is resolved. Pass the URL and selector to get a verified true or false result.

Instructions

Re-scan a specific element after applying an accessibility fix and confirm the violation is gone — closes the loop that find-only tools leave open. After you edit the code and serve it (deployed, staging, or http://localhost:3000), call this with the URL and the selector you fixed to get a machine-checked verified: true|false (DOM engines only — visual_audit findings and needs-review items are out of scope). Pass the WCAG criterion (e.g. "1.1.1") or axe rule id (e.g. "color-contrast") to check just that criterion; omit it to require the element be clean of ALL violations. A blocked page (bot-challenge / HTTP error) is reported as unverified, never a pass — verification fails closed. IMPORTANT: if your fix changed the element's class or id, the original selector may no longer match anything, which reads as verified — re-run scan_page or pass the updated selector to be sure. Pair with scan_page → generate_ai_fix → verify_fix for a full find-fix-verify cycle.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL now serving the fix (deployed, staging, or http://localhost:3000)
wcagNoOptional: WCAG criterion (e.g. "1.1.1", "1.4.3") or axe rule id (e.g. "color-contrast") to verify specifically. Omit to require the element be free of ALL violations.
selectorYesCSS selector of the element you fixed — use the `selector` from the original scan_page issue
viewportNoViewport size (default: desktop). Use the same viewport the issue was found at.
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that verification only works for DOM engines (not visual_audit), that a blocked page results in unverified (fail closed), and warns about selector mismatch potentially causing false verified. It also explains the optional wcag parameter behavior. These details provide good transparency.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. It covers all necessary information without unnecessary verbosity. While it could be broken into bullet points for improved scannability, it is efficient and well-organized for an agent reading sequentially.

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 the tool's complexity (accessibility verification), parameter count (4), and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers return semantics (verified: true|false), scope limitations (DOM engines only), and edge cases (blocked page, selector mismatch). It also references a full workflow cycle, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining each parameter's context: url indicates deployment/staging/localhost; wcag explains optionality and behavior when omitted; selector references original scan_page issue; viewport recommends same viewport. This adds clarity beyond the schema definitions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Re-scan a specific element after applying an accessibility fix and confirm the violation is gone'. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as part of a find-fix-verify cycle, and uses a specific verb-resource combination (verify fix).

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 explains when to use (after editing code and serving it with URL and selector) and when not (visual_audit and needs-review are out of scope). It also advises on handling changed selectors. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other verification siblings like check_aria or check_color_contrast.

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/snayyar00/webability-mcp'

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