accueil / serveurs / Dev & Code / io.github.sicxz/axcess
io.github.sicxz/axcess
serveur MCP (Model Context Protocol) · axcess-mcp-server 0.1.0
Référencé dans l'annuaire. Seul le pentest comportemental fait foi, et il n'a pas encore été exécuté sur ce serveur.
Est-ce que io.github.sicxz/axcess est sûr ?
Au dernier audit MCP Hub, le serveur MCP « io.github.sicxz/axcess » est classé « Non encore testé ». Référencé dans l'annuaire. Seul le pentest comportemental fait foi, et il n'a pas encore été exécuté sur ce serveur. Le verdict est réévalué en continu ; consultez la fiche pour l'état à jour.
Méthode : MCP Hub analyse la description de chaque outil (couche 1) et, pour le verdict fort, exécute le serveur dans une micro-VM isolée avec leurres et réseau bloqué (couche 2). On publie des noms et des compteurs, jamais le contenu brut renvoyé par un outil.
Les 3 outils
- evaluate_accessibility≈ 1084 tokens
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
Paramètres, retour & exemple (2)
Paramètreselements· array · requis
Array of UI elements to evaluatescreen_name· string · optionnel
Name of the screen or component being evaluated
Exemple d'appel{"name": "evaluate_accessibility", "arguments": {"elements": []}}Exemple de retour{"content": [{"type": "text", "text": "…"}]} - evaluate_typography≈ 1018 tokens
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.
Paramètres, retour & exemple (2)
Paramètreselements· array · requis
Array of typography elements to evaluatescreen_name· string · optionnel
Name of the screen or component being evaluated
Exemple d'appel{"name": "evaluate_typography", "arguments": {"elements": []}}Exemple de retour{"content": [{"type": "text", "text": "…"}]} - list_capabilities≈ 166 tokens
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.
Paramètres, retour & exemple (0)
Exemple d'appel{"name": "list_capabilities", "arguments": {}}Exemple de retour{"content": [{"type": "text", "text": "…"}]}
C'est votre serveur ?
Revendiquez-le sur l'espace créateur (preuve GitHub, domaine ou npm) pour afficher le badge « propriétaire vérifié » et lancer un pentest comportemental à la demande afin d'obtenir le badge « Vérifié ».