mcp server
Axcess — Design Accessibility Evaluation
Evaluates UI designs for WCAG accessibility issues automated scanners miss. Paid via x402 on Base.
Description as published by the maintainer. Source
- version 0.2.0
- slowing
- evaluation
slowing — Registry entry last updated 2026-03-27. Dashed tags are derived by ZBS Index from the published description, not stated by the maintainer.
What this server can do
3 functions, named and described by the server itself. Parameter names are shown because they say more about what a function does than its name usually does.
evaluate_accessibility(elements, screen_name)- Evaluates UI elements for accessibility issues that automated scanners miss. COST: $0.01 USDC via x402 on Base-compatible EVM network per call. Checks beyond what axe/Lighthouse/WAVE catch at the design stage: - Touch targets below 24×24px (WCAG 2.5.8 AA hard fail) - Touch targets below 44×44px (WCAG 2.5.5 AAA recommended) - Information conveyed by color alone without a secondary indicator (WCAG 1.4.1) - Missing focus indicators on interactive elements (WCAG 2.4.7) - Focus rings thinner than 2px (WCAG 2.4.11) - Focus ring contrast below 3:1 against adjacent background (WCAG 2.4.11) - Interactive elements below the practical usability height floor Args: - elements: Array of 1–50 UI element objects - screen_name: Optional label for the evaluation report Each element requires: element_type. Provide width_px/height_px for touch target checks. Provide uses_color_only + secondary indicator flags for 1.4.1 checks. Provide is_interactive + focus_visible + focus indicator properties for focus checks. Returns: Structured report with: - Per-element scores (0–100) and specific issues - Severity levels (critical/major/minor) with WCAG references - What automated tools miss and why - Concrete fix recommendations - Overall score and verdict (pass/needs_work/fail) - Top issues sorted by severity Required: elements.
evaluate_typography(elements, screen_name)- Evaluates typography elements against a principled accessibility rubric. COST: $0.05 USDC via x402 on Base-compatible EVM network per call. Goes beyond what axe/Lighthouse/WAVE can check — evaluates design judgment, not just numeric compliance. Catches issues like: - Contrast that passes WCAG 4.5:1 but fails visually due to thin font weight - Body text that meets minimum size requirements but is still too small for comfortable reading - Line heights that technically comply but impede readability for dyslexic users - Extended all-caps or italic text that passes all AA criteria but impairs reading - Text on gradient/image backgrounds where scanner sampling is unreliable - Heading sizes that are technically correct but visually indistinct from body Args: - elements: Array of 1–50 typography element objects with font/color properties - screen_name: Optional label for the evaluation report Each element requires: element_type, font_size, font_weight, line_height, color_hex, background_color_hex. Returns: Structured report with: - Per-element scores (0–100) - Specific issues with severity (critical/major/minor) - WCAG references and what automated tools miss - Concrete fix recommendations - Overall score and verdict (pass/needs_work/fail) - Top issues sorted by severity Example use: Extract text layer properties from Figma using get_design_context, pass the typography properties to this tool for evaluation before shipping. Required: elements.
list_capabilities- Returns available evaluation tools, what they check, and their pricing. Call this first to understand what Axcess can evaluate and how much each evaluation costs. This tool is FREE. All evaluation tools require USDC payment on Base network. Returns: JSON with tool descriptions, pricing, and rubric categories.
Last successful function declaration observed on . Source: https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp. We list what the server declared; we do not call any of these functions.
Endpoint status observed on . Source: https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp.
Signals
These are separate measurements of different things. They are deliberately not combined into one score, because a popularity number that mixes website traffic with saves and stars cannot be checked or acted on.
| Signal | Value | What it measures | Window | Observed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latest published version | 0.2.0 | Latest version string the maintainer published to the registry. | as of fetch | Model Context Protocol | |
| Registry record last updated | 2026-03-27 | When the registry record was last updated by its maintainer. | point in time | Model Context Protocol | |
| First listed in the MCP Registry | 2026-03-27 | Date this server was first published to the official MCP Registry. Not a usage or quality measure. | point in time | Model Context Protocol | |
| mcp tools declared | 3 tools | Number of functions the server itself declared when asked to list them. This is what the server offers an agent, not a measure of how well any of them work. | as of probe | axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev | |
| mcp endpoint status | ok | The server listed 3 functions when asked. | as of probe | axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev |
Where to get it
This record as data
Every field on this page, with its source and observation date, is in the catalog JSON. Fetch the whole kind at once instead of parsing this HTML.
GET /api/v1/entries/mcp_server.json