Skip to main content
Glama
tactual-dev

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
    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.
    18 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
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility checks for a URL or for HTML the agent just wrote, run locally in headless Chrome. 31 checks with CSS selectors, snippets and fix guidance; the same engine as the A11yScope Chrome extension.
    1
    -
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Gives AI agents structured, token-efficient access to the web by returning a compact page orientation on arrival, targeted queries for specific elements, and full detail only when explicitly requested. This avoids dumping entire accessibility trees, cutting page-reading costs by up to ~140x on content-heavy sites while supporting navigation, interaction, forms, tabs, monitoring, and dev auditing.
    8 npm
    -

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 issues