de en es ja ko ru zh

ActivityWatch MCP Server

Name: ActivityWatch MCP Server
Author: 8bitgentleman

by 8bitgentleman

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

ActivityWatch MCP-Server

Ein Model Context Protocol (MCP)-Server, der eine Verbindung zu ActivityWatch herstellt und es LLMs wie Claude ermöglicht, mit Ihren Zeiterfassungsdaten zu interagieren.

Funktionen

Buckets auflisten: Alle verfügbaren ActivityWatch-Buckets anzeigen
Abfragen ausführen: Leistungsstarke AQL-Abfragen (ActivityWatch Query Language) ausführen
Rohdaten abrufen: Ereignisse direkt aus jedem Bucket abrufen
Einstellungen abrufen: Auf ActivityWatch-Konfigurationseinstellungen zugreifen

Related MCP server: Paprika SQL MCP Server

Installation

Sie können den ActivityWatch MCP-Server entweder über npm installieren oder selbst erstellen.

Installation über npm (bald verfügbar)

# Global installation
npm install -g activitywatch-mcp-server

# Or install locally
npm install activitywatch-mcp-server

Aus dem Quellcode erstellen

Klonen Sie dieses Repository:

git clone https://github.com/8bitgentleman/activitywatch-mcp-server.git
cd activitywatch-mcp-server

Abhängigkeiten installieren:
```
npm install
```
Das Projekt erstellen:
```
npm run build
```

Voraussetzungen

ActivityWatch installiert und aktiv
Node.js (v14 oder höher)
Claude for Desktop (oder ein anderer MCP-Client)

Verwendung

Verwendung mit Claude for Desktop

Öffnen Sie Ihre Konfigurationsdatei für Claude for Desktop:
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
- macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Fügen Sie die MCP-Server-Konfiguration hinzu:

{
"mcpServers": {
    "activitywatch": {
    "command": "activitywatch-mcp-server",
    "args": []
    }
}
}

Wenn Sie aus dem Quellcode erstellt haben, verwenden Sie:

{
"mcpServers": {
    "activitywatch": {
    "command": "node",
    "args": ["/path/to/activitywatch-mcp-server/dist/index.js"]
    }
}
}

Starten Sie Claude for Desktop neu
Suchen Sie nach dem MCP-Symbol in der Benutzeroberfläche von Claude, um zu bestätigen, dass es funktioniert

Verwendung eines rootless Podman-Containers unter Linux mit dem Gemini CLI

Stellen Sie sicher, dass Sie das Image zuerst erstellen mit:

version=$(npm pkg get version | tr -d '"')
podman build . -t activitywatch-mcp-server:${version}

Dieses Beispiel verwendet die Überschreibung für den Fall, dass Activity Watch nicht unter 127.0.0.1 verfügbar ist (siehe nächster Abschnitt). Falls nicht erforderlich, können Sie die Umgebungsvariable AW_API_BASE weglassen.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "activitywatch-mcp-server": {
      "command": "/usr/bin/podman",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "--rm",
        "--interactive",
        "--userns=keep-id",
        "-e",
        "AW_API_BASE",
        "localhost/activitywatch-mcp-server:1.2.1"
      ],
      "env": {
        "AW_API_BASE": "http://mydesktop.local:5600/api/0"
      }
    }
  }
}

ActivityWatch-Server Host/Port überschreiben

Wenn Sie diesen MCP-Server beispielsweise innerhalb eines Containers vom Windows Subsystem for Linux ausführen möchten, ist der unter Windows laufende AW-Server nicht unter 127.0.0.1 verfügbar. Um die Standard-Localhost-Verbindung zu überschreiben, verwenden Sie die Umgebungsvariable AW_API_BASE oder das Flag --aw-api-base, wie unten gezeigt:

# Using environment variable
export AW_API_BASE=http://mydesktop.local:5600/api/0
node dist/index.js

# Or using command-line flag
node dist/index.js --aw-api-base=http://mydesktop.local:5600/api/0

HINWEIS: Der AW-Server ist möglicherweise wählerisch bezüglich des Namens, der für die Verbindung verwendet wird, aber er akzeptiert einen Namen, der dem Computernamen entspricht, auf dem er läuft, mit einem .local-Suffix.

Beispielabfragen

Hier sind einige Beispielabfragen, die Sie in Claude ausprobieren können:

Alle Buckets auflisten: "Welche ActivityWatch-Buckets habe ich?"
Zusammenfassung der Anwendungsnutzung abrufen: "Kannst du mir zeigen, welche Anwendungen ich heute am meisten genutzt habe?"
Browserverlauf anzeigen: "Auf welchen Websites habe ich heute die meiste Zeit verbracht?"
Produktivität prüfen: "Wie viel Zeit habe ich heute in Produktivitäts-Apps verbracht?"
Einstellungen anzeigen: "Was sind meine ActivityWatch-Einstellungen?" oder "Kannst du eine bestimmte Einstellung in ActivityWatch überprüfen?"

Verfügbare Tools

list-buckets

Listet alle verfügbaren ActivityWatch-Buckets mit optionaler Typfilterung auf.

Parameter:

type (optional): Buckets nach Typ filtern (z. B. "window", "web", "afk")
includeData (optional): Bucket-Daten in die Antwort einbeziehen

run-query

Führt eine Abfrage in der Abfragesprache von ActivityWatch (AQL) aus.

Parameter:

timeperiods: Abzufragende Zeiträume als Array von Strings formatiert. Für Datumsbereiche das Format verwenden: ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"]
query: Array von Abfrageanweisungen in der ActivityWatch Query Language, wobei jedes Element eine vollständige Abfrage mit durch Semikolons getrennten Anweisungen ist
name (optional): Name für die Abfrage (wird für das Caching verwendet)

WICHTIG: Jeder Abfrage-String sollte eine vollständige Abfrage mit mehreren durch Semikolons getrennten Anweisungen enthalten.

Beispiel-Anfrageformat:

{
  "timeperiods": ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"],
  "query": ["events = query_bucket('aw-watcher-window_UNI-qUxy6XHnLkk'); RETURN = events;"]
}

Beachten Sie, dass:

timeperiods vorformatierte Datumsbereiche mit Schrägstrichen haben sollten
Jedes Element im query-Array eine vollständige Abfrage mit allen Anweisungen ist

get-events

Ruft Rohdaten aus einem ActivityWatch-Bucket ab.

Parameter:

bucketId: ID des Buckets, aus dem Ereignisse abgerufen werden sollen
start (optional): Startdatum/-zeit im ISO-Format
end (optional): Enddatum/-zeit im ISO-Format
limit (optional): Maximale Anzahl der zurückzugebenden Ereignisse

get-settings

Ruft ActivityWatch-Einstellungen vom Server ab.

Parameter:

key (optional): Einen bestimmten Einstellungsschlüssel anstelle aller Einstellungen abrufen

Beispiele für die Abfragesprache

ActivityWatch verwendet eine einfache Abfragesprache. Hier sind einige gängige Muster:

// Get window events
window_events = query_bucket(find_bucket("aw-watcher-window_"));
RETURN = window_events;

// Get only when not AFK
afk_events = query_bucket(find_bucket("aw-watcher-afk_"));
not_afk = filter_keyvals(afk_events, "status", ["not-afk"]);
window_events = filter_period_intersect(window_events, not_afk);
RETURN = window_events;

// Group by app
window_events = query_bucket(find_bucket("aw-watcher-window_"));
events_by_app = merge_events_by_keys(window_events, ["app"]);
RETURN = sort_by_duration(events_by_app);

// Filter by app name
window_events = query_bucket(find_bucket("aw-watcher-window_"));
code_events = filter_keyvals(window_events, "app", ["Code"]);
RETURN = code_events;

Konfiguration

Der Server verbindet sich standardmäßig mit der ActivityWatch-API unter http://localhost:5600. Wenn Ihre ActivityWatch-Instanz auf einem anderen Host oder Port läuft, können Sie dies wie im Abschnitt "ActivityWatch-Server Host/Port überschreiben" oben beschrieben überschreiben.

Fehlerbehebung

ActivityWatch läuft nicht

Wenn ActivityWatch nicht läuft, zeigt der Server Verbindungsfehler an. Stellen Sie sicher, dass ActivityWatch läuft und unter der angegebenen Host-/Port-Adresse erreichbar ist (http://localhost:5600, sofern Sie es nicht überschrieben haben).

Abfragefehler

Wenn Sie auf Abfragefehler stoßen:

Überprüfen Sie Ihre Abfragesyntax
Stellen Sie sicher, dass die Bucket-IDs korrekt sind
Überprüfen Sie, ob die Zeiträume Daten enthalten
Überprüfen Sie die ActivityWatch-Protokolle auf weitere Details

Probleme mit der Abfrageformatierung in Claude/MCP

Wenn Claude Fehler meldet, wenn Abfragen über diesen MCP-Server ausgeführt werden, liegt dies wahrscheinlich an Formatierungsproblemen. Stellen Sie sicher, dass Ihre Abfrage in Ihren Prompts genau dieses Format einhält:

{
  "timeperiods": ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"],
  "query": ["events = query_bucket('aw-watcher-window_UNI-qUxy6XHnLkk'); RETURN = events;"]
}

Allgemeine Probleme:

Zeiträume nicht korrekt formatiert (sollten "Start/Ende" als einzelner String innerhalb eines Arrays sein)
Abfrageanweisungen in separate Array-Elemente aufgeteilt, anstatt in einem String kombiniert zu werden

Das häufigste Formatierungsproblem

Der häufigste Fehler tritt auf, wenn Claude jede Abfrageanweisung in ein eigenes Array-Element aufteilt, wie hier:

{
  "query": [
    "browser_events = query_bucket('aw-watcher-web');",
    "afk_events = query_bucket('aw-watcher-afk');",
    "RETURN = events;"
  ],
  "timeperiods": ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"]
}

Dies ist FALSCH. Stattdessen sollten alle Anweisungen in einem einzigen String innerhalb des Arrays stehen:

{
  "timeperiods": ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"],
  "query": ["browser_events = query_bucket('aw-watcher-web'); afk_events = query_bucket('aw-watcher-afk'); RETURN = events;"]
}

Beim Prompten von Claude

Wenn Sie Claude prompten, seien Sie sehr explizit bezüglich des Formats und verwenden Sie Beispiele. Sagen Sie zum Beispiel:

"Führe eine Abfrage aus mit timeperiods als ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"] und query als ["statement1; statement2; RETURN = result;"]. Wichtig: Stelle sicher, dass ALLE Abfrageanweisungen in einem einzigen String innerhalb des Arrays stehen, nicht in separate Array-Elemente aufgeteilt."

Mitwirken

Beiträge sind willkommen! Bitte zögern Sie nicht, einen Pull Request einzureichen.

Lizenz

MIT

Available Tools

5 tools

activitywatch_get_eventsC

Get raw events from an ActivityWatch bucket

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bucketId`	Yes	ID of the bucket to fetch events from
`limit`	No	Maximum number of events to return (default: 100)
`start`	No	Start date/time in ISO format (e.g. '2024-02-01T00:00:00Z')
`end`	No	End date/time in ISO format (e.g. '2024-02-28T23:59:59Z')

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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.

activitywatch_get_settingsB

Get ActivityWatch settings. Can retrieve all settings or a specific key if provided.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No	Optional: Get a specific settings key instead of all settings

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries 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.

activitywatch_list_bucketsB

List all ActivityWatch buckets with optional type filtering

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Filter buckets by type
`includeData`	No	Include bucket data in response

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries 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.

activitywatch_query_examplesB

Get examples of properly formatted queries for the ActivityWatch MCP server

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries 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.

activitywatch_run_queryC

Run a query in ActivityWatch's query language

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`timeperiods`	Yes	Time periods to query. Format: ['2024-10-28/2024-10-29'] where dates are in ISO format and joined with a slash
`query`	Yes	MUST BE A SINGLE STRING containing all query statements separated by semicolons. DO NOT split into multiple strings.
`name`	No	Optional name for the query (used for caching)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

5 tool updatesv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026
- Addedactivitywatch_get_events
- Addedactivitywatch_get_settings
- Addedactivitywatch_list_buckets
- Addedactivitywatch_query_examples
- Addedactivitywatch_run_query

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 11:35 across 5 tools

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.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

STAS Running Coach for Claude AOAuth
run.stas
Connect Claude to your Intervals.icu watch data for fitness, workout review, and plan writing.
Fitness Tracking Health & Wellness Education & Learning Tools
212
WHOOP — MissingMCPOAuth
com.missingmcp
WHOOP recovery, strain, sleep and workouts in Claude via official WHOOP OAuth. Free, open source.
Health & Wellness Fitness Tracking
25
hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
237
Garmin — MissingMCPOAuth
com.missingmcp
Garmin data in Claude: 135 tools — activities, sleep, HRV, training, workouts. Free, open source.
Health & Wellness Fitness Tracking
25

Related MCP Servers

TripleWhale MCP Serverofficial
E-commerce & Retail Search Databases
Triple-Whale
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
An implementation of Model Context Protocol (MCP) that allows users to interact with TripleWhale's e-commerce analytics platform using natural language queries through Claude Desktop.
Updated a year ago (2025-09-30 12:49 UTC)
106 npm
7
MIT
Paprika SQL MCP Server
Databases Developer Tools
jonaheaton
F
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol desktop extension that allows Claude to query and interact with custom SQL databases in real-time during conversations.
Updated a year ago (2025-09-20 04:04 UTC)
1
-
ActivityWatch MCP Server
Monitoring Developer Tools Knowledge & Memory
Auriora
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables LLM agents to query and analyze ActivityWatch time tracking data, including window activity, web browsing, and category management with natural language time periods and automatic data aggregation.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-17 16:33 UTC)
12
GPL 3.0
ActivityWatch MCP Server
Developer Tools Monitoring
JM-404
F
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Connects AI assistants to ActivityWatch for real-time computer activity awareness and time tracking analysis. Enables natural language queries about app usage, browsing history, and productivity patterns through high-level tools without requiring AQL syntax knowledge.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-07 04:31 UTC)
-

ActivityWatch MCP-Server

Funktionen

Installation

Installation über npm (bald verfügbar)

Aus dem Quellcode erstellen

Voraussetzungen

Verwendung

Verwendung mit Claude for Desktop

Verwendung eines rootless Podman-Containers unter Linux mit dem Gemini CLI

ActivityWatch-Server Host/Port überschreiben

Beispielabfragen

Verfügbare Tools

list-buckets

run-query

get-events

get-settings

Beispiele für die Abfragesprache

Konfiguration

Fehlerbehebung

ActivityWatch läuft nicht

Abfragefehler

Probleme mit der Abfrageformatierung in Claude/MCP

Das häufigste Formatierungsproblem

Beim Prompten von Claude

Mitwirken

Lizenz

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

TripleWhale MCP Serverofficial

Appeared in Searches