Skip to main content
Glama

render-mcp

by io.github.RodRomer

accessibility_audit

Read-only

Run a WCAG accessibility audit on a page using axe-core in a real browser, and report the violations with the elements responsible. Because it runs against a genuinely rendered page, colour-contrast and other rules that depend on layout and computed colour actually fire — these are silently skipped by audits that parse HTML without a layout engine. Use this to check a page meets WCAG before shipping.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe absolute URL to audit, including https://
standardNoWhich ruleset to run. 'wcag2aa' is the usual legal benchmark but is a narrow filter — it excludes best-practice checks such as landmarks and heading order, so a page can return zero violations and still have real problems. Use 'all' when the question is "is this page accessible?" rather than "does it meet WCAG AA?". Defaults to wcag2aa.wcag2aa
max_violationsNoMaximum violation types to report in detail. 1-50. Defaults to 20.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explains a nontrivial behavioral trait: because it runs in a real browser, layout-dependent rules like colour-contrast actually fire, while static HTML audits silently skip them. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and meaningfully informs expectations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is three tight sentences: what it does, why it is unique, and when to use it. The standard parameter description also earns its length by preventing a common misuse (treating WCAG AA zero violations as full accessibility). No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a 3-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details and expected output ('violations with the elements responsible'). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by this explicit outcome statement, and no critical guidance is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining why the rendered-browser context matters and clarifying that the 'standard' parameter is a narrow filter that excludes best-practice checks. This pushes it above baseline.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Run a WCAG accessibility audit'), a specific resource ('a page'), the engine (axe-core), and the output ('violations with the elements responsible'). The mention of a real rendered browser distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like rendered_html or screenshot_url.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to check a page meets WCAG before shipping.' It also provides parameter-level guidance, such as using 'all' when asking 'is this page accessible?' rather than 'does it meet WCAG AA?'. This gives an agent strong direction on when and how to invoke the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All render-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct concern: accessibility violations, computed layout, console/network errors, post-JS HTML, screenshots, and PDF output. There is no realistic overlap where an agent would be unsure which tool to call.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: inspect_element and screenshot_url are imperative, while accessibility_audit, page_diagnostics, rendered_html, and url_to_pdf are noun-like or descriptive phrases. A uniform verb_noun style would make the set more predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped count for a render/inspection server. Each tool covers a meaningful, non-redundant capability without bloating the surface.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core rendered-page workflows: getting content, seeing it, printing it, auditing accessibility, inspecting layout, and diagnosing errors. A minor gap is the lack of interaction or script execution tools, but for the stated rendering/diagnostics purpose the coverage is strong.

Resources