Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Site Audit MCP Server

Site Audit MCP Server

by steadfeed-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Accessibility (WCAG) check

audit_accessibility
Idempotent

Run axe-core WCAG 2.x A/AA checks on public pages and list violations by impact to support EAA readiness reviews. Static HTML only; not a legal compliance certificate.

Instructions

Run axe-core accessibility checks (WCAG 2.x A/AA by default) on public pages and list violations by impact. Static HTML only (no login, no JavaScript rendering). Useful for EAA readiness reviews; not a legal compliance certificate.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "audit_accessibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesPublic http(s) URLs of the pages to check (1-40).
dryRunNoPreview with built-in sample data; no website is contacted and the cost is minimal.
maxCostUsdNoOptional hard cap in USD for this call. The underlying Actor stops when the cap is reached. Minimum 0.05 (the Apify per-run minimum). Default: a small amount computed from the number of URLs, never below 0.05.
includeBestPracticeNoAlso run axe best-practice rules (default false).
maxViolationsListedNoCap on violations listed per page (default 25).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which alone would leave the agent guessing why an audit isn't read-only. The description supplies the meaningful limits: no login, no JavaScript rendering, static HTML only, and no legal-certification claim — context the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing run behavior (async Actor execution, failure handling) which would round it out.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: capability, hard limitation, and scope disclaimer. Front-loaded with the verb and rule set, with the constraint stated before the caveat.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent violations come back grouped by impact, and the cost-safety parameters are thoroughly covered in the schema. What's missing is any note on result granularity beyond violations (passes, incomplete checks) or that results come from a paid Actor run.

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 100%, so each parameter (urls, dryRun, maxCostUsd, includeBestPractice, maxViolationsListed) is already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds only the WCAG 2.x A/AA default rule set, which loosely frames includeBestPractice, and 'by impact' which loosely frames maxViolationsListed; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Run axe-core accessibility checks (WCAG 2.x A/AA)') plus the output shape ('list violations by impact'). No sibling in the catalog covers accessibility, and the axe-core/WCAG wording makes that separation explicit.

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?

Gives a positive use case ('EAA readiness reviews') and a clear exclusion ('not a legal compliance certificate'), plus the operational constraint of static HTML only. It does not name a sibling to use instead when the page needs JS rendering or login, so routing on those failures is left implicit.

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