axecap
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@axecapaudit localhost:3000 for WCAG AA violations"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
@icjia/axecap
A lightweight local MCP server that runs axe-core accessibility audits via Playwright and returns compressed, actionable results optimized for Claude's context window. Where lightcap wraps Lighthouse (which embeds axe-core behind several layers of abstraction), axecap runs axe-core directly — giving full control over WCAG conformance level targeting (A, AA, AAA), rule selection, and element-level detail that Lighthouse filters or aggregates away.
Why?
A raw axe-core result object can be 50K-500K tokens — deeply nested JSON with HTML snippets, full DOM node references, related nodes, and verbose check arrays. AxeCap compresses that into ~30-150 lines of structured plain text that Claude can read and act on immediately.
The workflow that matters:
You: "Audit localhost:3000 for WCAG AA"
Claude: [calls audit_url] 14 violations (3 critical, 5 serious, 4 moderate, 2 minor)
Claude: "I see 3 critical violations. Let me fix them now."
Claude: [edits your source files]
You: "Run it again"
Claude: [calls audit_url] 6 violations (0 critical, 2 serious, 3 moderate, 1 minor)This audit → fix → re-audit loop is what makes an MCP server more valuable than the axe-core CLI.
Related MCP server: A11y MCP Server
Why not just use lightcap?
lightcap is the right tool when you want a holistic Lighthouse audit (performance + a11y + SEO + best practices). But lightcap's accessibility results come from Lighthouse's interpretation of axe-core, which:
Filters rules — Lighthouse includes ~40 of axe-core's ~90+ rules, dropping many AAA and best-practice rules
Loses granularity — Lighthouse aggregates axe results into its own scoring system; individual rule metadata (tags, impact, help URLs) is partially stripped
Cannot target conformance levels — you can't ask Lighthouse for "AAA only" or "just the delta between AA and AAA"
Merges axe-core's
incompletecategory into passes — axe-core distinguishes "passed," "failed," and "needs review" (incomplete); Lighthouse collapses the third
axecap solves all four. It's the precision tool for WCAG compliance work; lightcap is the broad-spectrum audit tool.
When to use which
Scenario | Tool |
Pre-deploy check (perf + a11y + SEO) | lightcap |
Quick a11y score with impact grouping | lightcap |
Targeted WCAG AA compliance audit | axecap |
AAA gap analysis (what would it take?) | axecap |
Audit specific rules (e.g., color-contrast only) | axecap |
Get detailed rule documentation mid-fix | axecap |
Look up which rules map to a WCAG criterion | axecap |
Multi-site performance + a11y sweep | lightcap |
Test a component's HTML without a server | axecap |
What it does
Runs axe-core audits directly (not through Lighthouse) for full rule-set access
Targets WCAG conformance levels: A, AA (default), AAA, or best-practice
Layers best-practice and experimental rule sets on top of any level (
bestPractices/experimental— the axe DevTools extension toggles)AAA delta mode shows only the gap from AA to AAA ("what would it take?")
Audits specific axe-core rules by ID (e.g.,
color-contrast,image-alt)Audits raw HTML content without a running server (component testing)
Compresses ~50K-500K token axe-core JSON into ~30-150 lines of structured plain text
Groups violations by impact: critical, serious, moderate, minor
Includes WCAG criteria + conformance level per violation (e.g.,
[1.4.3 AA])Includes Deque University help URLs per violation
Includes "needs review" (incomplete) results as opt-in
Queries axe-core's rule registry without launching a browser (instant response)
Waits for SPA elements before auditing (
waitForparameter)Optionally saves full JSON results to disk for manual review
Reports server, axe-core, and Playwright version info with npm update availability
Standalone CLI for use outside of MCP clients
Runs as a local MCP server over stdio (no HTTP, no ports, no remote attack surface)
Installation
Prerequisites
Node.js >= 18 (check with
node --version)Claude Code, Cursor, or any MCP-compatible client (for MCP mode)
Playwright downloads Chromium automatically on first install — no separate browser install needed.
Option 1: npx (recommended, no install needed)
npx downloads and runs the package automatically. Nothing to install globally.
# Test that it works
npx -y @icjia/axecap --helpOption 2: Global install
npm install -g @icjia/axecapOption 3: Clone for development
git clone https://github.com/ICJIA/axecap-mcp.git
cd axecap-mcp
npm install
npx playwright install chromiumSetup with Claude Code
Claude Code manages MCP server lifecycle automatically — you register the server once, and Claude Code starts/stops it with each session.
Using npx (recommended)
# Register for all projects (user-level)
claude mcp add axecap -s user -- npx -y @icjia/axecap
# Or register for current project only
claude mcp add axecap -s project -- npx -y @icjia/axecapUsing a local clone
# Point directly at the source (for development)
claude mcp add axecap -s user -- node /absolute/path/to/axecap-mcp/src/server.jsManual config (edit settings.json directly)
If you prefer, edit ~/.claude/settings.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"axecap": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@icjia/axecap"]
}
}
}Verify it's registered
Restart Claude Code after registering. You should see axecap listed when you run /mcp in Claude Code. Then test:
"Use axecap to audit http://localhost:3000 for WCAG AA"
Tool routing with lightcap, viewcap, and Chrome MCP
If you have lightcap, viewcap, and Chrome MCP registered alongside axecap, add this to your project's CLAUDE.md to ensure Claude uses the right tool for each task:
# Tool preferences
- For WCAG compliance audits (A/AA/AAA, specific rules, rule lookups), use the `axecap` MCP server (audit_url, audit_html, get_rules, get_rule_info, get_status).
- For Lighthouse audits (performance, accessibility, SEO, best practices), use the `lightcap` MCP server (run_audit, run_a11y, get_status).
- For all screenshots, use the `viewcap` MCP server (take_screenshot, capture_selector, take_screencast).
- For version info on MCP tools, use the relevant server's `get_status` tool.
- Use Chrome MCP for browser automation, DOM interaction, and navigation only.Setup with Cursor
Cursor supports MCP servers through its settings. Add axecap to your Cursor MCP configuration.
Global configuration
Edit ~/.cursor/mcp.json (create it if it doesn't exist):
{
"mcpServers": {
"axecap": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@icjia/axecap"]
}
}
}Project-level configuration
Create .cursor/mcp.json in your project root:
{
"mcpServers": {
"axecap": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@icjia/axecap"]
}
}
}After adding the configuration, restart Cursor. AxeCap's tools will be available to the AI assistant.
Setup with other MCP clients
AxeCap works with any MCP client that supports stdio transport. The server communicates over stdin/stdout using JSON-RPC (the MCP protocol). Configure your client to spawn:
npx -y @icjia/axecapNo HTTP ports, no environment variables, no API keys required.
MCP Tools
audit_url
Run an axe-core accessibility audit on a web page at a specified WCAG conformance level. Default audits A + AA rules (cumulative). Set bestPractices / experimental to layer those rule sets on top of the level — together they reproduce the axe DevTools extension's two toggles (level: 'aa', bestPractices: true, experimental: true matches a "WCAG 2.1 AA + Best Practices + Experimental" extension scan).
Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
| string | (required) | HTTP/HTTPS URL to audit |
| string |
| WCAG conformance level: |
| boolean |
| Also run best-practice rules on top of the level (axe DevTools "Best Practices" toggle) |
| boolean |
| Also run experimental rules on top of the level (axe DevTools "Experimental" toggle) |
| boolean |
| If true with |
| string[] | — | Run only these specific rule IDs (e.g., |
| number | 10 | Top N violations per impact group (max 15) |
| string |
|
|
| boolean |
| Include "needs review" results |
| string | — | CSS selector to wait for before auditing (for SPAs) |
| string | — | Save full JSON results to this directory |
Returns: Compressed plain text with violation count, impact grouping, WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, and help URLs.
Example output (page with violations at AA):
axe: http://localhost:3000 [desktop] AA — 14 violations (3c 5s 4m 2n)
── Critical (3 violations, 18 el) ──
✗ image-alt [1.1.1 A] (12 el)
→ img.hero-image
→ img.card-thumb (×8)
→ img.logo
→ img.partner-logo (×2)
→ (+7)
ℹ https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/image-alt
✗ color-contrast [1.4.3 AA] (4 el)
→ p.subtitle
→ span.caption
→ a.nav-link
→ (+1)
ℹ https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/color-contrast
✗ label [1.3.1 A] (2 el)
→ input#search
→ input#email
ℹ https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/label
── Serious (5 violations, 11 el) ──
✗ heading-order [1.3.1 A] (1 el)
→ section.content > h4
ℹ https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/heading-order
✗ link-name [2.4.4 A] (3 el)
→ a.icon-link, a.social-fb, a.social-tw
ℹ https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/link-name
...
── Moderate (4 violations, 8 el) ──
...
── Minor (2 violations, 3 el) ──
...Example output (clean page):
axe: http://localhost:3000 [desktop] AA — 0 violationsOne line. ~20 tokens. No wasted context on a page that doesn't need fixing.
Example output (AAA delta):
axe: http://localhost:3000 [desktop] AAA (delta from AA) — 6 violations (0c 2s 3m 1n)
── Serious (2 violations, 5 el) ──
✗ link-in-text-block [1.4.1 A] (3 el)
→ a.inline-link (×3)
ℹ https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/link-in-text-block
...audit_html
Run an axe-core audit on raw HTML content. Useful for testing components or generated markup without a running server. All network requests from embedded resources are blocked (SSRF-safe).
Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
| string | (required) | HTML content to audit |
| string |
| WCAG conformance level |
| boolean |
| Also run best-practice rules on top of the level |
| boolean |
| Also run experimental rules on top of the level |
| string[] | — | Specific rule IDs to run |
| number | 10 | Top N per impact group |
| string |
|
|
| boolean |
| Include needs-review results |
Returns: Same compressed format as audit_url.
get_rules
List axe-core rules, optionally filtered by WCAG level or tag. Does not require a browser — instant response.
Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
| string | — | Filter to rules at this WCAG level ( |
| string | — | Filter to rules for a specific WCAG criterion (e.g., |
| string | — | Search rule IDs and descriptions (substring match) |
Example output:
axe-core rules (AA, 47 rules):
color-contrast [1.4.3 AA] serious — Elements must meet minimum color contrast ratio thresholds
image-alt [1.1.1 A] critical — Images must have alternate text
label [1.3.1 A] critical — Form elements must have labels
link-name [2.4.4 A] serious — Links must have discernible text
...get_rule_info
Get detailed information about a specific axe-core rule.
Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
| string | (required) | axe-core rule ID (e.g., |
Example output:
axe rule: color-contrast
Impact: serious
WCAG: 1.4.3 (AA)
Tags: wcag2aa, wcag143, cat.color
Help: Elements must meet minimum color contrast ratio thresholds
Help URL: https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/color-contrastget_status
Returns server version, axe-core version, Playwright version, and update availability.
The "update available" check runs
npm view axe-core version, a one-time network call at server startup (5s timeout, non-blocking). Offline or behind a firewall it simply reports(latest)— no audit functionality depends on it.
Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
(none) | — | — | No parameters |
Example output:
axecap status
Server: @icjia/axecap v0.1.0
axe-core: v4.10.2 (latest: v4.10.2)
Playwright: v1.49.1
Node: v22.22.0
Platform: darwin arm64WCAG Conformance Level Targeting
This is the core differentiator from lightcap. WCAG conformance is cumulative: AAA includes all AA rules, which include all A rules. The level parameter handles this automatically — you don't need to think about tag composition.
| What it audits |
| Level A only |
| A + AA (everything AA compliance requires) |
| A + AA + AAA (full conformance) |
| Best practices only (not WCAG-mapped) |
Delta mode
For "what would it take to go from AA to AAA?", pass level: 'aaa' and delta: true. This returns only AAA-specific violations — the gap between your current AA compliance and full AAA conformance.
CLI (standalone usage)
AxeCap includes a standalone CLI for use outside of MCP clients:
# Install globally (or use npx)
npm install -g @icjia/axecap
# WCAG AA audit (default)
axecap audit http://localhost:3000
# WCAG AAA audit
axecap audit http://localhost:3000 --level aaa
# AAA delta (only AAA-specific violations)
axecap audit http://localhost:3000 --level aaa --delta
# Specific rules only
axecap audit http://localhost:3000 --rules color-contrast,image-alt
# Include "needs review" results
axecap audit http://localhost:3000 --include-incomplete
# Mobile viewport
axecap audit http://localhost:3000 --viewport mobile
# Wait for SPA element before auditing
axecap audit http://localhost:3000 --wait-for "#app-loaded"
# Save full JSON to directory
axecap audit http://localhost:3000 --directory ~/reports
# List AA rules
axecap rules --level aa
# Rules for a specific WCAG criterion
axecap rules --criterion 1.4.3
# Search rules
axecap rules --search contrast
# Rule detail
axecap rule-info color-contrast
# Check versions
axecap status
# Verbose logging
axecap --verbose audit http://localhost:3000When run without a subcommand, axecap starts in MCP server mode (stdio transport).
Usage examples
From Claude Code or Cursor, just ask naturally:
"Audit localhost:3000 for WCAG AA"
"Audit localhost:3000 for AAA and show only the delta from AA"
"Audit localhost:3000 with axecap, rules: aria-allowed-role"
"What axe-core rules cover WCAG criterion 1.4.3?"
"Get info on the color-contrast rule"
"Audit this HTML for accessibility: <img src='photo.jpg'>"
"What version of axecap is running?"
"Fix all critical and serious violations, then re-audit"Compression strategy
The central design principle: zero tokens on passes, maximum detail on failures.
Every tool response must be small enough that Claude retains room to reason and act. A raw axe-core result object can be 50K-500K tokens. AxeCap compresses that to ~20-2,000 tokens depending on the number of violations.
Context window impact
Scenario | Lines | Tokens (~) | vs. Raw JSON |
Clean page (0 violations) | 1 | ~20 | 99.99% smaller |
Page with 5 violations | ~20-30 | ~500 | 99.90% smaller |
Heavy violation page (30+ rules) | ~80-150 | ~2,000 | 99.60% smaller |
Rule info lookup | ~10-15 | ~200 | — |
Rule list (filtered) | ~20-40 | ~600 | — |
Raw axe-core JSON (NEVER returned) | ~5K-50K | ~50K-500K | — |
How compression works
axe-core returns deeply nested JSON with HTML snippets, full DOM node references, related nodes, and verbose any/all/none check arrays. The compression engine applies:
Violations only by default — passes and inapplicable rules skipped entirely (zero tokens)
Incomplete (needs-review) as opt-in — returned only when
includeIncomplete: trueCompact header — URL, conformance level, violation count, impact summary on one line
Impact grouping — critical/serious/moderate/minor with shorthand:
3c 5s 4m 2nCSS selectors only — no HTML snippets, no full DOM node trees
Selector deduplication —
img.card (x8)not eight separate entriesSelector truncation — capped at 60 chars
Selector sanitization — non-CSS characters stripped to prevent prompt injection
WCAG tags extracted —
wcag111->1.1.1, with conformance level:[1.1.1 A]Top N violations per impact group — configurable, default 10
Tiered element detail — critical/serious show 5 elements, moderate/minor show 3
Help URL included per rule — one-line Deque University reference link
Hard cap — 200 lines / 50,000 chars
What is never returned: raw axe JSON, full HTML snippets, DOM node trees, related node arrays, any/all/none check detail, inapplicable rules.
Why plain text, not JSON?
JSON wastes tokens on syntax ({, }, "key":, quotes). Plain structured text is ~30% fewer tokens than equivalent JSON, easier for Claude to scan, and still structured enough to act on.
Testing
# Run all tests
npm test
# Run a specific test file
node --test test/compress.test.jsThe test suite covers:
URL validation — scheme whitelist, blocking of file:/data:/javascript:/ftp: schemes
Metadata endpoint blocking — AWS, GCP, Azure cloud metadata endpoints
IP blocking — localhost bypass, full 127.x loopback range, all RFC1918 172.16-31.x ranges
waitFor validation — CSS-only enforcement, blocking of text=/xpath=/>> pseudo-selectors
Sanitization — control char stripping, newline removal, zero-width char removal, CSS-safe selector filtering
Compression — impact grouping, WCAG criterion extraction, selector deduplication, tiered element detail, delta mode filtering, output line + char limits
Rule queries — level filtering, criterion filtering, search, rule info lookup
Error sanitization — known-safe passthrough, connection/timeout/DNS mapping, path leakage prevention
Config sanity — all numeric limits positive, WCAG level tag cumulation, security constants
Local development
There is no build step. AxeCap is plain JavaScript with ES modules. The source files are what ships to npm.
Edit source files
|
v
Restart Claude Code (re-spawns the server from source)
|
v
Test by talking to Claude Code ("audit localhost:3000 for WCAG AA")
|
v
See a bug? Edit the file, restart Claude Code, repeat.Quick development setup
# 1. Clone and install
git clone https://github.com/ICJIA/axecap-mcp.git
cd axecap-mcp
npm install
npx playwright install chromium
# 2. Register your local copy with Claude Code
claude mcp add axecap -s user -- node $(pwd)/src/server.js
# 3. Restart Claude Code
# 4. Spin up a test target in another terminal
npx serve -l 3000 .
# 5. Test from Claude Code:
# "Use axecap to audit http://localhost:3000 for WCAG AA"
# "Audit localhost:3000 for AAA and show only the delta from AA"
# "What axe-core rules cover WCAG criterion 1.4.3?"After editing source files, restart Claude Code to pick up changes (the server is re-spawned fresh each startup).
Architecture
src/
├── server.js ........... MCP server init + 5 tool registrations + version tracking
├── runner.js ........... Playwright launch + axe-core injection + URL/directory validation
├── compress.js ......... axe results → compressed plain text (the core of the server)
├── rules.js ............ axe-core rule registry queries (metadata, tags, filtering)
├── cli.js .............. Commander-based standalone CLI
└── config.js ........... Constants, WCAG level tags, logging helperFile | Role |
| MCP init, Zod schemas for 5 tools, request routing, error handling |
| Playwright lifecycle, axe-core injection via |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dependencies
Package | Purpose |
| MCP server SDK (stdio transport, tool registration) |
| Deque axe-core accessibility engine (MPL 2.0) — injected into page context |
| Browser automation (launches Chromium, navigates, runs |
| CLI subcommand parsing |
| Schema validation for MCP tool parameters |
Not needed (unlike lightcap):
No
lighthouse— axe-core is the engineNo
chrome-launcher— Playwright manages ChromiumNo
sharp— no image processingNo
@axe-core/playwright— we injectaxe.sourcedirectly for full control
Security
AxeCap runs locally over stdio — no network listener, no ports, no remote attack surface. Security mitigations focus on preventing SSRF, prompt injection, and resource exhaustion.
SSRF prevention
Scheme whitelist: Only
http:andhttps:URLs are allowed.file://,data:,javascript:,ftp://, and all other schemes are blocked.Metadata / unspecified-address blocklist: AWS (
169.254.169.254), GCP (metadata.google.internal), Azure (metadata.azure.com), and the unspecified addresses0.0.0.0and[::]are blocked by hostname. Genuine loopback (localhost,127.0.0.1,::1) remains allowed so local dev servers can be audited; the "all interfaces" addresses are treated as blocked, not as loopback.Private IP range blocklist: All RFC1918 ranges (
10.x,172.16–31.x,192.168.x), full loopback (127.x), "this network" (0.x), CGNAT shared space (100.64.0.0/10, RFC6598), IPv4 link-local (169.254.x), IPv6 link-local (fe80::/10), IPv6 unique-local (fullfc00::/7— both thefcandfdhalves), and IPv6 unspecified/loopback (::,::1) are blocked.IPv6-mapped IPv4 normalization: Addresses like
::ffff:169.254.169.254are normalized before classification.Multi-address DNS check: Hostnames are resolved with
{ all: true }and blocked if any returned address is private — defends against hosts that publish a mix of public and internal records.Fail-closed DNS: If hostname resolution fails, the request is blocked (not allowed).
Post-navigation URL recheck: After Playwright navigates,
page.url()is validated against the same blocklist — catches HTTP redirect chains and DNS rebinding attacks.Sub-resource filtering (
audit_url): The loaded page's own requests (images, scripts,fetch) are intercepted; any request to a metadata endpoint or private IP literal is aborted, so an audited page cannot reach the cloud metadata service or probe the LAN. Public resources (CDNs) and loopback are allowed, matching the navigation policy.HTML audit network blocking:
audit_htmlblocks all network requests viapage.route('**/*', route => route.abort()), preventing SSRF via embedded resources like<img src="http://169.254.169.254/...">.
Known limitation: DNS for hostnames is resolved once at validation time, not re-checked at connection time, and sub-resource hostnames are not re-resolved. A determined DNS-rebinding attacker controlling a domain could still target their own internal network; the metadata/private-IP-literal blocks above are the primary defense.
Prompt injection prevention
Output sanitization: All page-controlled content (CSS selectors, rule IDs) is stripped of control characters (C0/C1), newlines, zero-width chars, and BOM before being included in output.
CSS-safe selector sanitization: Selectors are additionally stripped of non-CSS characters, blocking crafted class names designed to inject instructions.
Selector truncation: CSS selectors are capped at 60 characters.
Help text truncation: Help text capped at 120 characters.
Character budget: Total output is capped at 50,000 characters (in addition to the 200-line cap).
HTML snippets never returned: axe-core's
node.htmlfield (contains raw page HTML) is never included in output — CSS selectors only.Dialog auto-dismiss:
page.on('dialog', ...)dismisses alert/confirm/prompt dialogs that could block execution.
waitFor selector validation
The waitFor parameter is restricted to CSS selectors only. Playwright pseudo-selectors (text=, xpath=, >>, css=, _react=, _vue=) are blocked.
Directory traversal prevention
Output paths are validated against the user's home directory and
/tmponly.The deepest existing ancestor directory is resolved via
realpathSyncbefore any new directories are created, preventing TOCTOU symlink swap attacks.After creation, the final path is re-verified against allowed roots (belt and suspenders).
Error message safety
Error messages returned to the AI are sanitized through an allowlist. Known safe messages pass through; common error types (connection refused, timeout, DNS failure) are mapped to generic messages; unknown errors return
'Audit failed'with details logged to stderr only.
Resource limits
Resource | Limit | Enforced By |
Concurrent audits | 2 max | runner.js (slot gate, fail-fast beyond) |
Page load timeout | 30s | Playwright |
axe-core execution timeout | 30s |
|
Total audit timeout | 60s | Promise.race in runner.js |
URL length | 2048 chars | Zod schema |
HTML input length | 500KB | Zod schema |
Directory path length | 500 chars | Zod schema |
Violations per impact group | 15 max | Zod schema + compress.js |
Elements per violation | 5 shown | compress.js |
Selector length | 60 chars | compress.js |
Help text length | 120 chars | compress.js |
Output lines | 200 max | compress.js |
Output characters | 50,000 max | compress.js |
Browser process | killed in finally | runner.js |
No raw data exposure
Full axe-core JSON is never returned to Claude. JSON can only be saved to disk (for human review) via the directory parameter. The compression engine is the only path from axe-core results to Claude's context.
Configuration flags
Flag | Description |
| Log audit timing, browser lifecycle, compression details |
| Log errors only |
ICJIA-specific usage
ADA Title II compliance (April 24, 2026 deadline)
The audit → fix → re-audit loop is the primary workflow:
You: "Audit localhost:3000 for WCAG AA with axecap"
You: "Fix all critical and serious violations"
You: "Run it again — how many violations remain?"
You: "Now show me what AAA violations exist (delta mode)"
You: "Which of those are feasible to fix?"The sia-r110 problem
For pages flagged with "All roles are invalid" from Vuetify's auto-generated role attributes:
You: "Audit localhost:3000 with axecap, rules: aria-allowed-role"This runs only the relevant rule, returning exactly the elements with invalid roles. lightcap can't do this.
Pre-deploy checks
Add to your project's CLAUDE.md:
# Deploy checklist
Before any deploy to production:
1. Run `axecap audit_url` against localhost with level AA
2. Verify 0 critical violations and 0 serious violations
3. Run `lightcap run_audit` for performance + SEO baselineClean-room notice
This project's design is informed by axe-core's public documentation, API, and rule registry. This is an original implementation. axe-core is used as a library dependency (Mozilla Public License 2.0). Playwright is used for browser automation (Apache 2.0). No code from third-party axe wrapper packages (e.g., @axe-core/cli, @axe-core/playwright, accessibility-checker) is used.
License
MIT. See LICENSE.
Available Tools
5 toolsaudit_htmlA
Run an axe-core audit on raw HTML content. Useful for testing components or generated markup without a running server. Network requests from embedded resources are blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | HTML content to audit | |
| level | No | WCAG conformance level (default: aa) | |
| rules | No | Specific axe-core rule IDs to run | |
| viewport | No | Viewport emulation (default: desktop) | |
| maxViolations | No | Top N per impact group (default 10) | |
| includeIncomplete | No | Include needs-review results |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful behavior (network requests blocked) but doesn't describe the return format or whether scripts in the HTML execute. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the audit verb implies non-mutating behavior, but more detail would help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase contributes: purpose, use case, and a key behavioral constraint. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the purpose, the offline context, and a key limitation. With the schema fully documenting all parameters, this is reasonably complete for an audit tool. The main omission is an explicit description of the return value or report structure, but the core usage is well covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'html' parameter with 'raw HTML content' but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run an axe-core audit on raw HTML content.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool audit_url by emphasizing raw HTML input rather than a URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear use case: 'Useful for testing components or generated markup without a running server.' The network-blocking limitation also helps decide when to use this tool versus a URL-based audit. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
audit_urlA
Run an axe-core accessibility audit on a web page at a specified WCAG conformance level. Default audits A + AA rules (cumulative). Returns violations grouped by impact with WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, and help URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTP or HTTPS URL to audit | |
| delta | No | If true with level aaa, show only AAA-specific violations (the gap from AA to AAA) | |
| level | No | WCAG conformance level — aa (default) audits A + AA rules; aaa audits A + AA + AAA | |
| rules | No | Run only these specific axe-core rule IDs (e.g., ["color-contrast", "image-alt"]) | |
| waitFor | No | CSS selector to wait for before auditing (for SPAs) | |
| viewport | No | Viewport emulation (default: desktop) | |
| directory | No | Save full JSON results to this directory | |
| maxViolations | No | Top N violations per impact group (default 10, max 15) | |
| includeIncomplete | No | Include needs-review results in addition to violations |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful details: default audit level (A+AA cumulative), output grouping by impact, and inclusion of WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, and help URLs. This goes beyond a generic statement but does not cover potential errors or access limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains default behavior and return format. Zero filler, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return composition (violations grouped by impact with WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, help URLs). It does not discuss error cases or relationship to sibling tools, but with 9 richly described parameters and a clear summary, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does mention the default level (aa), which aligns with the schema. No additional value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Run an axe-core accessibility audit on a web page at a specified WCAG conformance level.' This specifies the verb (run), resource (web page), and distinguishes it from siblings like audit_html (which likely audits HTML input) and get_rules (lists rules).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for auditing web pages but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_html or get_rules. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the usage context is clear but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_rule_infoA
Get detailed information about a specific axe-core rule including WCAG criteria, impact, tags, and help URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleId | Yes | axe-core rule ID (e.g., "color-contrast") |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the return value content (WCAG criteria, impact, tags, help URL), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid ruleId), side effects, or whether any permissions are needed. As a read-only getter, the absence of side-effect information is less critical, but it's still a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists key information returned. Every word contributes value with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the return contains. It could mention behavior for a non-existent ruleId, but for a straightforward getter, the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a helpful description for ruleId (including an example). The tool description only restates the concept of a specific axe-core rule without adding new details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb "Get" and clearly identifies the resource as "detailed information about a specific axe-core rule," listing the included content (WCAG criteria, impact, tags, help URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rules and get_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need details for a specific rule, identified by ruleId. It clearly states the tool's scope (specific rule vs. listing all rules with get_rules), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context but not full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_rulesA
List axe-core accessibility rules, optionally filtered by WCAG level, criterion, or search term. Does not require a browser — instant response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Filter to rules at this WCAG level | |
| search | No | Search rule IDs and descriptions | |
| criterion | No | Filter to rules for a WCAG criterion (e.g., "1.4.3") |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Does not require a browser — instant response', which adds performance and execution context. The word 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'optionally filtered' clarifies behavior when no filters are supplied. It does not describe return format, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List axe-core accessibility rules'), then adds filter options and a useful behavioral note. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what it lists, how to filter, and that it is instant and browserless. It does not mention return structure, but that is not essential for a list operation, and the sibling get_rule_info presumably handles detailed rule information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (level, search, criterion) having its own description. The tool description adds a summary of filtering ('by WCAG level, criterion, or search term') but no additional detail beyond what the schema provides. This is consistent with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'axe-core accessibility rules' and mentions optional filtering by WCAG level, criterion, or search term. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like audit_url/audit_html (which perform audits) and get_rule_info (which focuses on a single rule).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: to list rules without requiring a browser, providing instant responses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the contrast with browser-requiring audit tools is implicit. The lack of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_statusA
Returns axecap server version, installed axe-core version, Playwright version, and whether a newer axe-core version is available on npm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately lists all return values, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that checking via npm involves an external network request. For a simple informational tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently lists all return values with no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema. The description fully enumerates the return values, making it complete for its intended purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the input schema is empty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns specific status information (server version, axe-core version, Playwright version, npm availability check). This distinguishes it from sibling audit and rule tools, which focus on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and content imply it is for checking versions/status, there is no stated context, prerequisites, or mention of alternative tools for other purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: auditing a URL, auditing HTML, listing rules, getting rule details, and checking server status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores (audit_url, audit_html, get_rules, get_rule_info, get_status). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for an accessibility auditing server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core domain: performing audits on both live URLs and raw HTML, accessing comprehensive rule information, and checking server status. There are no obvious gaps in the workflow.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: a11y-scorer
SEO MCP server: crawl your site, find AI-visibility gaps, and ship the fix from your coding agent.
Augments MCP Server - A comprehensive framework documentation provider for Claude Code
MCP server for progressive tool usage at any scale (see https://klavis.ai)
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for performing accessibility audits on webpages using axe-core. Use the results in an agentic loop with your favorite AI assistants (Cline/Cursor/GH Copilot) and let them fix a11y issues for you!217451Mozilla Public 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables LLMs to perform web accessibility testing against WCAG standards using Deque Axe-core API and Puppeteer.623390MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that extracts accessibility tree, design tokens, screenshots, Claude DSL, and Figma JSON from any URL using a persistent Chromium browser with zero LLM cost.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA proxy MCP server that summarizes Playwright accessibility snapshots using Claude Haiku, reducing context usage for efficient browser automation.19MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/ICJIA/axecap-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server