Remote MCP server to run your Atako AI agents: chat, projects, files, integrations and channels.
- Passed: Handshake
- Passed: Tools listed
- Passed: Updated recently
Median latency 132 ms · Last checked
Explore
Evidence for your next connection.
Independent measurements of remote MCP servers. Every observation has a timestamp.
Read-only probesMCP server · Code & DevOps
Evaluates UI designs for WCAG accessibility issues automated scanners miss. Paid via x402 on Base.
3 failed · 8 not measured
Median of successful probes over 7 days
Share of countable probes over 30 days, including daily rollups. Auth challenges are excluded.
Tool definitions returned by this server
Independent monitoring
Responded
The server completed its last measured handshake. This is an observation, not a guarantee.
Last checked| Test area | Passed | Failed | Unmeasured |
|---|---|---|---|
ConnectionCan a client connect and discover tools? | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Reliability & speedDoes it respond consistently and quickly? | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Access & authenticationWhat is required to use this server? | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Tool qualityAre the tool definitions usable by an agent? | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Publisher identityCan the publisher be traced to its source? | 1 | 3 | 2 |
Unmeasured means there is not enough evidence to decide. How these checks work
Start using Axcess — Design Accessibility Evaluation
Choose your client, copy the configuration, then enable the server in your client’s MCP settings.
Run this command in your terminal, then restart Claude Code.
Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http axcess-design-accessibility-evaluation https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcpCapabilities
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
DiscoveredEvaluates 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.
DiscoveredReturns 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.
DiscoveredRecent measurements
| Checked | Result | Response | Tools |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connected | 539 ms | 3 |