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 サーバー

ActivityWatch に接続し、Claude のような LLM が時間追跡データと対話できるようにする Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバーです。

機能

バケットの一覧表示: 利用可能なすべての ActivityWatch バケットを表示
クエリの実行: 強力な AQL (ActivityWatch Query Language) クエリを実行
生のイベントを取得: 任意のバケットから直接イベントを取得
設定を取得: ActivityWatch の構成設定にアクセス

Related MCP server: Paprika SQL MCP Server

インストール

ActivityWatch MCP サーバーは、npm からインストールするか、ソースからビルドすることができます。

npm からのインストール (近日公開)

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

# Or install locally
npm install activitywatch-mcp-server

ソースからのビルド

このリポジトリをクローンします:

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

依存関係をインストールします:
```
npm install
```
プロジェクトをビルドします:
```
npm run build
```

前提条件

ActivityWatch がインストールされ、実行されていること
Node.js (v14 以上)
Claude for Desktop (またはその他の MCP クライアント)

使用方法

Claude for Desktop での使用

Claude for Desktop の設定ファイルを開きます:
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
- macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

MCP サーバーの設定を追加します:

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

ソースからビルドした場合は、以下を使用します:

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

Claude for Desktop を再起動します
Claude のインターフェースで MCP アイコンを探し、動作していることを確認します

Linux 上の rootless podman コンテナと Gemini CLI での使用

最初に以下のコマンドでイメージをビルドしてください:

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

この例では、Activity Watch が 127.0.0.1 で利用できない場合のオーバーライドを使用しています（次のセクションを参照）。不要な場合は、AW_API_BASE 環境変数を省略できます。

{
  "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 サーバーのホスト/ポートのオーバーライド

Windows Subsystem for Linux 内など、コンテナ内からこの MCP サーバーを実行したい場合、Windows で実行されている AW サーバーには 127.0.0.1 ではアクセスできません。標準の localhost 接続をオーバーライドするには、以下のように環境変数 AW_API_BASE または --aw-api-base フラグを使用します:

# 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

注意: AW サーバーは接続に使用される名前に厳しい場合がありますが、実行されているコンピュータ名に .local サフィックスを付けた名前であれば受け入れられます。

クエリの例

Claude で試せるクエリの例をいくつか紹介します:

すべてのバケットを一覧表示: "What ActivityWatch buckets do I have?"
アプリケーション使用状況の概要を取得: "Can you show me which applications I've used the most today?"
閲覧履歴を表示: "What websites have I spent the most time on today?"
生産性を確認: "How much time have I spent in productivity apps today?"
設定を表示: "What are my ActivityWatch settings?" または "Can you check a specific setting in ActivityWatch?"

利用可能なツール

list-buckets

利用可能なすべての ActivityWatch バケットを、オプションの型フィルタリング付きで一覧表示します。

パラメータ:

type (オプション): 型でバケットをフィルタリング (例: "window", "web", "afk")
includeData (オプション): レスポンスにバケットデータを含める

run-query

ActivityWatch のクエリ言語 (AQL) でクエリを実行します。

パラメータ:

timeperiods: クエリ対象の期間。文字列の配列としてフォーマットします。日付範囲の場合は ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"] の形式を使用してください
query: ActivityWatch Query Language によるクエリステートメントの配列。各アイテムはセミコロンで区切られた完全なクエリです
name (オプション): クエリの名前 (キャッシュ用)

重要: 各クエリ文字列には、セミコロンで区切られた複数のステートメントを含む完全なクエリを含める必要があります。

リクエスト形式の例:

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

注意点:

timeperiods は、スラッシュで区切られた日付範囲として事前にフォーマットされている必要があります
query 配列の各アイテムは、すべてのステートメントを含む完全なクエリです

get-events

ActivityWatch バケットから生のイベントを取得します。

パラメータ:

bucketId: イベントを取得するバケットの ID
start (オプション): ISO 形式の開始日時
end (オプション): ISO 形式の終了日時
limit (オプション): 返すイベントの最大数

get-settings

サーバーから ActivityWatch の設定を取得します。

パラメータ:

key (オプション): すべての設定ではなく、特定のキーの設定を取得します

クエリ言語の例

ActivityWatch はシンプルなクエリ言語を使用します。一般的なパターンをいくつか紹介します:

// 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;

設定

サーバーはデフォルトで http://localhost:5600 の ActivityWatch API に接続します。ActivityWatch インスタンスが別のホストやポートで実行されている場合は、上記の「ActivityWatch サーバーのホスト/ポートのオーバーライド」セクションの説明に従ってオーバーライドできます。

トラブルシューティング

ActivityWatch が実行されていない

ActivityWatch が実行されていない場合、サーバーは接続エラーを表示します。ActivityWatch が実行されており、指定されたホスト/ポートアドレス (http://localhost:5600、オーバーライドしていない場合) でアクセス可能であることを確認してください。

クエリエラー

クエリエラーが発生する場合:

クエリの構文を確認してください
バケット ID が正しいことを確認してください
timeperiods にデータが含まれていることを確認してください
詳細については ActivityWatch のログを確認してください

Claude/MCP のクエリフォーマットの問題

Claude がこの MCP サーバーを通じてクエリを実行する際にエラーを報告する場合、フォーマットの問題である可能性が高いです。プロンプト内でクエリが以下の正確な形式に従っていることを確認してください:

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

一般的な問題:

期間が正しくフォーマットされていない (配列内の単一文字列として "start/end" である必要があります)
クエリステートメントが 1 つの文字列に結合されず、別々の配列要素に分割されている

最も一般的なフォーマットの問題

最も頻繁に発生するエラーは、Claude が各クエリステートメントを以下のように別々の配列要素に分割してしまうことです:

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

これは誤りです。代わりに、すべてのステートメントを配列内の単一の文字列に含める必要があります:

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

Claude にプロンプトを出すとき

Claude にプロンプトを出すときは、フォーマットについて非常に明示的に指示し、例を使用してください。例えば、次のように伝えます:

"Run a query with timeperiods as ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"] and query as ["statement1; statement2; RETURN = result;"]. Important: Make sure ALL query statements are in a single string within the array, not split into separate array elements."

貢献

貢献を歓迎します！お気軽にプルリクエストを送信してください。

ライセンス

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
2
WHOOP — MissingMCPOAuth
com.missingmcp
WHOOP recovery, strain, sleep and workouts in Claude via official WHOOP OAuth. Free, open source.
Health & Wellness Fitness Tracking
213
DoneThatOAuth
ai.donethat
Privacy-first work tracking with summaries, reports, coaching, and AI-ready long-term memory.
Project Management Knowledge & Memory Workplace & Productivity
2
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
238

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
C
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 7 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 6 months ago (2026-04-07 04:31 UTC)
-

ActivityWatch MCP サーバー

機能

インストール

npm からのインストール (近日公開)

ソースからのビルド

前提条件

使用方法

Claude for Desktop での使用

Linux 上の rootless podman コンテナと Gemini CLI での使用

ActivityWatch サーバーのホスト/ポートのオーバーライド

クエリの例

利用可能なツール

list-buckets

run-query

get-events

get-settings

クエリ言語の例

設定

トラブルシューティング

ActivityWatch が実行されていない

クエリエラー

Claude/MCP のクエリフォーマットの問題

最も一般的なフォーマットの問題

Claude にプロンプトを出すとき

貢献

ライセンス

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

TripleWhale MCP Serverofficial

Appeared in Searches