Skip to main content
Glama

webbersites-x402-data-api

by io.github.webberdesign

get_a11y_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

WCAG accessibility check (static analysis): findings mapped to WCAG success criteria with A/AA/AAA levels — alt text, page title, lang, form labels, heading structure, table headers, link purpose, accessible names, duplicate IDs, ARIA role validity, zoom blocking, meta refresh, skip links. Filter with ?level=A|AA|AAA. Honestly reports what static analysis cannot check (contrast, focus, keyboard). ($0.01 per call, paid via x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic URL of the page to check
levelNoFilter findings to A, AA, or AAA (includes lower levels)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalsNo
findingsNo
not_checkedNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses static analysis nature, limitations (contrast, focus, keyboard), and pricing ($0.01 per call) beyond annotations which already indicate readonly and idempotent.

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?

Concise and efficient; main purpose front-loaded, list of checks in compact form, no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and presence of output schema, description adequately covers scope, limitations, filtering, and pricing.

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?

Description mentions filtering by level, but schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions; schema coverage is 100%, so minimal added value.

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 clearly states it's a WCAG accessibility check for static analysis, listing specific checks (alt text, page title, etc.) and distinguishing from siblings like get_a11y_contrast.

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?

Provides context for when to use (WCAG compliance) and filtering by level, but no explicit when-not or alternatives; however, sibling tools cover contrast, so implication is clear.

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

All webbersites-x402-data-api 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).

Resources