# Axcess — Design Accessibility Evaluation (remote · axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev)

Evaluates UI designs for WCAG accessibility issues automated scanners miss. Paid via x402 on Base.

- Trust score: 71/100 (medium)
- Change this week: +6
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-08-03

## Components

- remote · `axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev`: 71/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/sicxz-axcess/axcess-mcp-server.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/sicxz-axcess/axcess-mcp-server)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `0.2.0`

## Trust breakdown

How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-08-03.

- **Endpoint Security**: 74/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one.
  - HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path.
  - HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 63/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).
  - Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 778 tokens (~259/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 27/100
  - Stability observed for 8 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
- **Tool Coverage**: 100/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 100% of tool parameters carry a description.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http sicxz-axcess https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.sicxz-axcess]
url = "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "sicxz-axcess": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add sicxz-axcess --url https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  sicxz-axcess:
    url: "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp"
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sicxz-axcess": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-08-02 (score 71, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-07-31 (score 70, +3)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-07-30 (score 67, +1)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-07-28 (score 66, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-07-27 (score 65, +1)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-07-26 (score 64)

First indexed and scored.

## MCP tools (3)

### `list_capabilities` (~68 tokens)

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.

### `evaluate_typography` (~344 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `elements` (array, required): Array of typography elements to evaluate
- `screen_name` (string): Name of the screen or component being evaluated

### `evaluate_accessibility` (~366 tokens)

Evaluate 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

Input parameters:

- `elements` (array, required): Array of UI elements to evaluate
- `screen_name` (string): Name of the screen or component being evaluated

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/sicxz-axcess/axcess-mcp-server#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-08-03: 71
- 2026-08-02: 71
- 2026-08-01: 70
- 2026-07-31: 70
- 2026-07-30: 67
- 2026-07-29: 66
- 2026-07-28: 66
- 2026-07-27: 65
- 2026-07-26: 64

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/sicxz-axcess/axcess-mcp-server/changelog.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/sicxz-axcess/axcess-mcp-server/changelog.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/sicxz-axcess/axcess-mcp-server