What can you do with this server?

This server provides tools to run SiteLint Auditor audits on web content via an MCP interface. You can: * Audit live URLs with audit_url: Analyze any webpage for WCAG accessibility, SEO, performance, and security. Optionally filter by standard (WCAG, SiteLint), audit type (accessibility, performance, security, SEO), WCAG level (A, AA, AAA, best_practices), WCAG version (2.0, 2.1, 2.2), and specific WCAG criteria (e.g., 1.1.1). Supports custom page load strategies (load, domcontentloaded, networkidle0, networkidle2) for waiting on dynamic content. * Audit raw HTML with audit_html: Submit raw HTML snippets for analysis in a sandboxed browser page. Same filtering options as URL audits, with load strategy limited to 'load' or 'domcontentloaded'. * Check a single WCAG criterion with check_wcag_criterion: Quickly test a specific criterion (e.g., 1.1.1) against a live URL, returning pass/fail and violation count. Allows specifying WCAG level (default AA). * Access resources: Retrieve supported WCAG criteria via auditor://standards and full JSON reports from previous audits via auditor://report/{id}. * Configure behavior via environment variables or CLI flags: browser path, concurrency, timeouts, headless mode, and transport (stdio or SSE). Integrates with MCP clients like Claude Desktop, VS Code (Cline/Continue), and opencode.

How do I use SiteLint Auditor MCP?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@SiteLint Auditor MCP Audit https://example.com for WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility issues." 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.

SiteLint Auditor MCP

Official

by sitelint

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

SiteLint Auditor MCP Server

MCP server that runs SiteLint Auditor - WCAG and SiteLint Best Practices for accessibility, SEO, performance, and security audits via LLM agents.

Quick start

npx @sitelint/auditor-mcp

Requires Chromium (installed automatically by Puppeteer).

Related MCP server: mcp-seo

Tools

`audit_url`

Audit a live URL.

{
  "url": "https://example.com",
  "standards": ["wcag"],
  "auditTypes": ["accessibility"],
  "wcagLevels": ["A", "AA"],
  "wcagVersions": ["2.2"],
  "wcagCriteria": []
}

`audit_html`

Audit raw HTML without fetching a URL. Defaults to waitUntil: "load" so image-based rules (e.g. oversized images, size calculations) see fully loaded assets. A timeout guards against hanging external resources — if the load event never fires, the audit aborts with a clear error instead of hanging. Pass waitUntil: "domcontentloaded" to skip slow assets entirely.

All filter parameters are required — pass empty arrays to skip a filter.

WCAG audit:

{
  "html": "<!DOCTYPE html><html>...</html>",
  "standards": ["wcag"],
  "auditTypes": ["accessibility"],
  "wcagLevels": ["A", "AA"],
  "wcagVersions": ["2.2"],
  "wcagCriteria": ["1.1.1", "1.4.3"]
}

SiteLint best practices (proprietary SEO, performance, security):

{
  "html": "<!DOCTYPE html><html lang=\"en\"><head><title>Test</title></head><body></body></html>",
  "standards": ["sitelint"],
  "auditTypes": ["seo", "performance", "security"],
  "wcagLevels": [],
  "wcagVersions": [],
  "wcagCriteria": []
}

Full audit (everything):

{
  "html": "<!DOCTYPE html><html>...</html>",
  "standards": ["wcag", "sitelint"],
  "auditTypes": ["accessibility", "performance", "security", "seo"],
  "wcagLevels": ["A", "AA", "AAA"],
  "wcagVersions": ["2.0", "2.1", "2.2"],
  "wcagCriteria": []
}

`check_wcag_criterion`

Check a single WCAG criterion against a URL.

{
  "url": "https://example.com",
  "criterion": "1.1.1"
}

Returns pass/fail with violation count.

Filter parameters

Filters are ANDed — a rule must match every provided filter to run. On audit_url filters are optional (omit or pass empty arrays to skip). On audit_html all filter parameters are required — pass empty arrays to skip.

Parameter	Values	Example
`standards`	`wcag`, `sitelint`	`["wcag"]`
`auditTypes`	`accessibility`, `performance`, `security`, `seo`	`["accessibility", "seo"]`
`wcagLevels`	`A`, `AA`, `AAA`, `best_practices`	`["A", "AA"]`
`wcagVersions`	`2.0`, `2.1`, `2.2`	`["2.2"]`
`wcagCriteria`	WCAG criterion numbers	`["1.1.1", "1.4.3"]`

Omit a parameter (or pass empty array) to skip that filter.

Resources

URI	Description
`auditor://standards`	Supported WCAG criteria with levels
`auditor://report/{id}`	Full JSON report from a previous audit

Configuration

Environment variables

Variable	Default	Description
`AUDITOR_BROWSER_PATH`	Puppeteer default	Custom Chromium/Chrome path
`AUDITOR_CONCURRENCY`	`3`	Max concurrent audit pages (hard cap)
`AUDITOR_TIMEOUT`	`30000`	Navigation/render timeout (ms)
`AUDITOR_HEADLESS`	`true`	Set `false` to see browser
`AUDITOR_TRANSPORT`	`stdio`	`stdio` or `sse`
`AUDITOR_PORT`	`3100`	Port for SSE transport

SSE / HTTP transport

Run the server over Streamable HTTP instead of stdio:

AUDITOR_TRANSPORT=sse AUDITOR_PORT=3100 npm start

The server listens on 127.0.0.1:3100 and accepts MCP requests via POST /. Host and Origin headers are validated (localhost only). Graceful shutdown on SIGINT/SIGTERM closes the browser and the HTTP server.

Client config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sitelint-auditor": {
      "url": "http://127.0.0.1:3100"
    }
  }
}

CLI flags

auditor-mcp --bundle ./custom-bundle.js --timeout 60000 --headless false

Flag	Env equivalent
`--browser <path>`	`AUDITOR_BROWSER_PATH`
`--concurrency <n>`	`AUDITOR_CONCURRENCY`
`--timeout <ms>`	`AUDITOR_TIMEOUT`
`--headless <bool>`	`AUDITOR_HEADLESS`
`--bundle <path>`	—
`--transport <stdio \| sse>`	`AUDITOR_TRANSPORT`
`--port <n>`	`AUDITOR_PORT`

Integration guides

opencode

Add to ~/.config/opencode/opencode.json:

{
  "mcp": {
    "sitelint-auditor": {
      "type": "local",
      "command": ["npx", "-y", "@sitelint/auditor-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

For a local build:

{
  "mcp": {
    "sitelint-auditor": {
      "type": "local",
      "command": ["node", "/path/to/auditor-mcp/dist/cli.js"]
    }
  }
}

With custom Chromium:

{
  "mcp": {
    "sitelint-auditor": {
      "type": "local",
      "command": ["npx", "-y", "@sitelint/auditor-mcp"],
      "environment": {
        "AUDITOR_BROWSER_PATH": "/Applications/Google Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google Chrome",
        "AUDITOR_TIMEOUT": "60000"
      }
    }
  }
}

Claude Desktop

Edit claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sitelint-auditor": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@sitelint/auditor-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

VS Code (Cline)

In Cline extension settings → MCP Servers:

{
  "sitelint-auditor": {
    "command": "npx",
    "args": ["-y", "@sitelint/auditor-mcp"]
  }
}

VS Code (Continue)

In ~/.continue/config.json:

{
  "experimental": {
    "mcpServers": {
      "sitelint-auditor": {
        "command": "npx",
        "args": ["-y", "@sitelint/auditor-mcp"]
      }
    }
  }
}

AnythingLLM

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sitelint-auditor": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@sitelint/auditor-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Other MCP clients

Any MCP client can connect. Use stdio transport (default) for local tools, or AUDITOR_TRANSPORT=sse with AUDITOR_PORT=3100 for remote.

Build from source

git clone <repo>
cd auditor-mcp
npm install
npm run build

# Bundle the auditor engine
cp /path/to/auditor/dist/auditor.bundle.js vendor/
cp /path/to/auditor/app/translations/en-us.json vendor/translations/

Requirements

Node.js 20+
Chromium (auto-downloaded by Puppeteer, or point to existing via AUDITOR_BROWSER_PATH)
SiteLint Auditor bundle (vendored as vendor/auditor.bundle.js)

How it works

Launches headless Chromium via Puppeteer (single browser, pages capped by AUDITOR_CONCURRENCY)
Loads the target page and waits for it to settle (bounded by AUDITOR_TIMEOUT)
Injects the SiteLint Auditor JS bundle into the page
Runs a single-shot audit against the current DOM state
Formats results into a concise text report with grouping and truncation for long outputs
Stores full JSON as a resource accessible via auditor://report/{id}

Navigation failures, timeouts, and browser-launch errors are returned as readable messages rather than raw exceptions.

Limitations vs. embedded auditor

When SiteLint Auditor is embedded directly into a website via <script>, it watches for DOM mutations, re-tests dynamically loaded content, and provides an interactive sidebar UI. The MCP server does not do any of that — it takes a one-time snapshot of the page at the moment of injection. Content loaded after the audit starts (lazy images, infinite scroll, SPA route transitions) is not evaluated. For SPAs or pages with heavy dynamic content, consider waiting for full render before calling the tool.

Available Tools

3 tools

audit_htmlA

Audit raw HTML snippet against WCAG/SEO standards. Creates a sandbox page to analyze the markup.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`html`	Yes
`standards`	Yes
`waitUntil`	No	load
`auditTypes`	Yes
`wcagLevels`	Yes
`wcagCriteria`	Yes
`wcagVersions`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a sandbox page is created to analyze the markup, which is useful context, but does not disclose whether the HTML is sent externally, how the sandbox is handled, or any security implications. This is moderate transparency but leaves notable gaps.

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 only two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds the key behavioral detail in the second sentence. Exemplary conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters (6 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain any of the required parameters, the meaning of 'sitelint', the expected input format for html, or the structure of audit results. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional exploration.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 parameters, but it only hints at the standards parameter ('WCAG/SEO') and says nothing about auditTypes, wcagLevels, wcagVersions, wcagCriteria, or waitUntil. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning or examples.

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?

The description clearly states the tool audits raw HTML snippets against WCAG/SEO standards, using a sandbox page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools: audit_url presumably audits URLs, and check_wcag_criterion checks specific criteria. The verb 'audit' and resource 'raw HTML snippet' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'raw HTML snippet' provides clear context: use this when you have markup to audit rather than a URL. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 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 a SiteLint audit on a live URL. Checks WCAG accessibility, SEO, performance, and security. Optionally filter by standard, audit type, WCAG level, version, or specific success criteria.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	Yes
`standards`	No
`waitUntil`	No	networkidle2
`auditTypes`	No
`wcagLevels`	No
`wcagCriteria`	No
`wcagVersions`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the audit scope and available filters but does not mention network behavior, waitUntil handling, or result format. There is no annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause adds value: scope, categories, and filtering capability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for tool selection, covering purpose and key filters. But with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, missing details like waitUntil behavior and return value shape leave notable gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description helps by mapping filter categories (standard, audit type, WCAG level, version, criteria) to parameters. However, it omits waitUntil semantics and does not fully explain each parameter's formatting beyond schema enums.

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?

The description states the specific action ('Run a SiteLint audit on a live URL') and names the audit categories (accessibility, SEO, performance, security). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings audit_html (HTML input) and check_wcag_criterion (single criterion).

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?

The 'live URL' scoping provides clear context for when to use this tool vs audit_html, and the optional filter list gives usage flexibility. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use, but the context is strong enough.

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

check_wcag_criterionA

Check a single WCAG success criterion against a page. Filters audit to one criterion, level, and WCAG standard — faster than full audit. Returns pass/fail per element.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	Yes
`level`	No	AA
`criterion`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool filters an audit, returns pass/fail per element, and is faster than a full audit. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or prerequisites, which are useful for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a valuable output hint ('Returns pass/fail per element'). Every phrase contributes without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a basic return format and scope but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, missing criteria, accessibility limitations). It is adequate for a simple check tool but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'criterion, level, and WCAG standard,' but 'WCAG standard' does not correspond to any schema property (only url, level, criterion). The description does not clearly map parameters to schema fields, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Check a single WCAG success criterion against a page') and differentiates from siblings by noting it 'filters audit to one criterion, level, and WCAG standard — faster than full audit.' This makes the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool — for targeted, faster checks — and contrasts it with a full audit. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions, but the context and wording ('faster than full audit') provide clear usage guidance.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

3 tool updatesv1.0.1Jul 31, 2026
- First observedaudit_html
- First observedaudit_url
- First observedcheck_wcag_criterion

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

audit_url and audit_html are clearly distinct by input type, but check_wcag_criterion overlaps with audit_url when filtering to a single criterion. The descriptions help differentiate them by emphasizing speed and a single-criterion focus, but minor ambiguity remains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (audit_url, audit_html, check_wcag_criterion). The switch from 'audit' to 'check' is a slight inconsistency but still logical, as checking a single criterion differs from running a full audit.

Tool Count5/5

With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped for a specialized auditor server. Each tool serves a distinct, necessary function—URL auditing, HTML snippet auditing, and focused WCAG criterion checks—without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core auditing workflows are covered: auditing a live URL, auditing raw HTML, and checking a specific WCAG criterion. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for retrieving historical audits or comparing results, but these do not block primary usage.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

squirrelscan A
com.squirrelscan
Website QA for your coding agent: audit SEO, performance, security, accessibility over MCP.
Browser Automation Monitoring Web Scraping
202265
HubVibe Site Audits A
io.github.Its-fortunatefolly
Rule-based site audits: accessibility, SEO, security headers, performance. Metered per call.
Testing & QA Tools Monitoring Security
51
crawlinx-mcp A
io.github.im-ff
Free technical-SEO audit MCP: crawl a site, run checks, return an LLM-ready shareable report.
Web Scraping Browser Automation Marketing
3
Web Validator by DigestSEO A
io.github.AKzar1el
Validate HTML/CSS, audit SEO and JSON-LD, check links, and capture responsive screenshots.
Marketing Testing & QA Tools Browser Automation
817

Related MCP Servers

mcp-a11y-tools
Testing & QA Tools Developer Tools
rog0x
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Provides AI agents with web accessibility analysis tools via MCP, enabling checks for alt text, heading hierarchy, color contrast, ARIA validation, and form accessibility.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-03-21 20:22 UTC)
50
MIT
mcp-seo
Web Scraping Browser Automation
g-battaglia
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to perform comprehensive SEO audits on web pages, including meta tags, headings, links, images, performance, and more, via a CLI or MCP server.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-13 15:22 UTC)
18
1
MIT
a11y-mcp-server
aiuxmasters
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Exposes axe-core accessibility auditing as MCP tools so any MCP-compatible agent can audit HTML for structural and semantic issues.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-21 18:09 UTC)
3
MIT
SEO Screaming Toad MCP Server
Web Scraping Browser Automation Marketing
lovecatisgood-sudo
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Provides 23 bounded MCP tools for AI agents to perform technical SEO audits, including crawl setup, page analysis, issue detection, and report exports, all while keeping data local.
Updated 10 days ago (2026-08-27 16:34 UTC)
6
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/sitelint/auditor-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server