io.github.sicxzPublished by GitHub account sicxzv0.2.0Updated Oct 24, 2026
Evaluates UI designs for WCAG accessibility issues automated scanners miss. Paid via x402 on Base.
Axcess is a remote MCP server that lets an assistant evaluate UI designs for accessibility issues that automated scanners miss, paid per call in USDC.
Web executable via Streamable HTTP. Remote servers run from the web runtime once configured in a workspace.
Paste this prompt into Claude Code, Codex, Cursor or another agent — or into SourceWeft chat. The agent reads this server's install guide, shows you its publisher, endpoint and sign-in, and adds it to your client once you agree. Keys never go into a command.
Read https://sourceweft.com/mcp/io.github.sicxz%2Faxcess/install.md and connect the MCP server it describes to my client. Before changing any config, show me its publisher, endpoint and sign-in method and wait for my OK. Never put an API key in a command or in a file I would commit; ask me where it should come from.Add this to your client's mcpServers config.
{
"mcpServers": {
"axcess-design-accessibility-evaluation": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp"
}
}
}List Axcess Capabilities & Pricing
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.
Takes no parameters.
Evaluate Typography Accessibility
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.
elementsrequiredscreen_nameEvaluate UI Accessibility
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
elementsrequiredscreen_name83% of the applicable checks met
How complete this listing is, computed from the registry entry, the endpoint and public sources. Not a rating of the server and not a statement that it is safe or working today: reachability is a dated check, and no installs or reviews go into the score.
Declare a GitHub repository with a README, or serve resource_documentation in the OAuth protected-resource metadata.
A hosted service is used under its provider's terms, so no license is expected here. This check is left out of the percentage.