ActivityWatch MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_events retrieves raw event data, get_settings accesses configuration, list_buckets enumerates available data containers, query_examples provides documentation, and run_query executes queries. There is no overlap in functionality that would cause agent confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'activitywatch_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case throughout. The verbs (get, list, run) are appropriately descriptive and maintain a uniform naming convention across all five tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for interacting with ActivityWatch data. The count is appropriate for the domain, covering core operations like data retrieval, configuration access, and query execution without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides solid coverage for querying and inspecting ActivityWatch data, including examples for guidance. A minor gap exists in write operations (e.g., creating or modifying buckets/events), but the available tools support most common read and query workflows effectively.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what format the 'raw events' are returned in. The description is functionally adequate but lacks important operational context.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'raw events' means in terms of data structure, doesn't mention any limitations or constraints, and provides no context about the ActivityWatch system. The agent would need to guess about the return format and operational characteristics.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value regarding parameter usage or semantics.
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 clearly states the action ('Get raw events') and resource ('from an ActivityWatch bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'activitywatch_query_examples' or 'activitywatch_run_query', which might also retrieve event data but with different approaches or formats.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'activitywatch_query_examples' and 'activitywatch_run_query' that might serve similar purposes, there's no indication of when this raw event retrieval is preferred over those query-based approaches, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a query execution tool.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with well-documented parameters and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a query execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of running queries and the lack of structured output documentation, more context about the operation's nature and results is needed.
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?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). While the schema thoroughly documents all three parameters with formats, constraints, and examples, the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage semantics, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Run a query') and the resource ('in ActivityWatch's query language'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'activitywatch_query_examples', which might cause confusion about when to use each.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activitywatch_get_events' or 'activitywatch_query_examples'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation with optional filtering, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'includeData' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all ActivityWatch buckets') and adds a concise modifier ('with optional type filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and hints at filtering, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is insufficient for confident tool selection in varied scenarios.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('type' for filtering and 'includeData' for including bucket data). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional type filtering,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like example types or implications of including data. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's structured.
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 clearly states the action ('List all ActivityWatch buckets') and resource ('ActivityWatch buckets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'activitywatch_get_events' by focusing on buckets rather than events, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other bucket-related tools (none exist in the sibling list). The optional filtering aspect adds specificity beyond a basic list operation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional type filtering but doesn't explain scenarios where filtering is beneficial or when to choose this over other tools like 'activitywatch_query_examples' or 'activitywatch_run_query' for bucket-related tasks. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves settings but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.
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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and parameter usage without unnecessary details.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what settings are returned, their structure, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed for adequate agent understanding.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'key' parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'a specific key if provided,' but doesn't provide additional semantics like key examples, format, or constraints beyond what the schema states.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ActivityWatch settings'), and distinguishes between retrieving all settings or a specific key. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'activitywatch_get_events' or 'activitywatch_list_buckets' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'all settings or a specific key if provided,' which suggests when to use the optional parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., vs. 'activitywatch_get_events') or any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets examples,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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, clear sentence: 'Get examples of properly formatted queries for the ActivityWatch MCP server.' It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get examples') and specifies the context ('for the ActivityWatch MCP server'), with zero wasted words. This makes it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, authentication needs) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, which could hinder an agent's understanding of how to use the examples provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for parameter semantics in this context.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get examples of properly formatted queries for the ActivityWatch MCP server.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('examples of properly formatted queries'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'activitywatch_run_query' or 'activitywatch_get_events,' which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to understand query syntax before using 'activitywatch_run_query'), exclusions, or contextual cues. Without such information, an agent might struggle to choose between this and sibling tools like 'activitywatch_run_query' or 'activitywatch_get_events.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![activitywatch-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8bitgentleman/activitywatch-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8bitgentleman/activitywatch-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![activitywatch-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8bitgentleman/activitywatch-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/8bitgentleman/activitywatch-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/8bitgentleman/activitywatch-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server