Apple Apps MCP

by 0xatrilla

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

Request Apple Permission

apple_request_permission

Request Calendar or Reminders permissions, or get an explanation of Automation permissions on macOS.

Instructions

Request Calendar or Reminders permission, or explain Automation permissions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "apple_request_permission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key behaviors like whether it prompts the user, what happens if permission is already granted, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context such as the effect of the request (e.g., user prompt) and potential errors. Without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context to be considered complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify that the 'automation' target is for explaining permissions rather than requesting, which adds value beyond the raw enum values. However, it does not elaborate on the other two targets beyond their names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the exact permissions (Calendar, Reminders, Automation) and the action (request or explain). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like apple_permissions_status by focusing on requesting rather than checking status. However, the dual use of 'request' and 'explain' for Automation may cause slight ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to check permissions status first or when permissions are already granted. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.