Skip to main content
Glama
tactual-mcp

tactual-mcp

Official
by tactual-dev

Related Servers

Alternatives to tactual-mcp

Related Servers

  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables automated WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility audits of Figma designs and webpages. Generates detailed markdown reports with severity-grouped violations, specific criterion references, and concrete fix recommendations.
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables coding agents to deterministically audit markup and stylesheets for WCAG contrast failures, accessibility errors and design-token sprawl, and to compute contrast ratios and inventory hardcoded colors, sizes, radii and spacing before shipping UI code. Works across any web stack with Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Codex and Antigravity, and can also run as a CI check that exits non-zero on errors.
    58 npm
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Visual frontend accessibility inspector MCP server. WCAG contrast checking, touch target validation, heading hierarchy audits, responsive screenshots, and S+ grading across mobile and desktop viewports.
    36 PyPI
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Audits any site's UX the way a design-literate reviewer would — contrast, tap targets, type scale, colour discipline, scan patterns, copy — and returns the rule, the source line and the exact fix.
    6
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables coding agents to measure text and background contrast with WCAG 2 and APCA, receive nearest passing color fixes at the same hue, generate contrast-safe palettes, and audit real pages for accessibility failures.
    MIT

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Scored across 9 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, but analyze_url, analyze_pages, trace_path, and validate_url all relate to page analysis and may initially appear overlapping. The descriptions clarify the differences, though the names alone do not make the boundaries obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (save_auth, list_profiles, analyze_url, analyze_pages, trace_path, validate_url, diff_results, suggest_remediations). However, calibration_report breaks the pattern as a noun phrase rather than an action (e.g., generate_calibration_report), creating a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools cover the accessibility analysis workflow coherently: auth setup, single/multi-page analysis, path tracing, validation, comparison, remediation suggestions, profile listing, and calibration. No obvious redundancy or bloated surface area.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full workflow from authentication capture through analysis, trace explanation, multi-page aggregation, result comparison, remediation guidance, and model validation. Obvious gaps are not apparent for the stated purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo recent community issues