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 서버

ActivityWatch에 연결하여 Claude와 같은 LLM이 시간 추적 데이터와 상호 작용할 수 있도록 하는 Model Context Protocol (MCP) 서버입니다.

기능

버킷 목록: 사용 가능한 모든 ActivityWatch 버킷 보기
쿼리 실행: 강력한 AQL(ActivityWatch Query Language) 쿼리 실행
원시 이벤트 가져오기: 모든 버킷에서 직접 이벤트 검색
설정 가져오기: ActivityWatch 구성 설정에 액세스

Related MCP server: Paprika SQL MCP Server

설치

npm을 통해 설치하거나 직접 빌드하여 ActivityWatch MCP 서버를 설치할 수 있습니다.

npm을 통한 설치 (곧 제공 예정)

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

# Or install locally
npm install activitywatch-mcp-server

소스에서 빌드

이 저장소를 복제합니다:

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

종속성을 설치합니다:
```
npm install
```
프로젝트를 빌드합니다:
```
npm run build
```

사전 요구 사항

ActivityWatch가 설치되어 실행 중이어야 함
Node.js (v14 이상)
Claude for Desktop (또는 기타 MCP 클라이언트)

사용법

Claude for Desktop과 함께 사용하기

Claude for Desktop 구성 파일을 엽니다:
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
- macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

MCP 서버 구성을 추가합니다:

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

소스에서 빌드한 경우 다음을 사용하세요:

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

Claude for Desktop을 다시 시작합니다
Claude 인터페이스에서 MCP 아이콘을 찾아 작동하는지 확인합니다

Linux에서 Gemini CLI와 함께 rootless podman 컨테이너 사용하기

먼저 다음 명령어로 이미지를 빌드하세요:

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

이 예제는 Activity Watch를 127.0.0.1에서 사용할 수 없는 경우에 대한 오버라이드를 사용합니다(다음 섹션 참조). 필요하지 않은 경우 AW_API_BASE 환경 변수를 생략할 수 있습니다.

{
  "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 서버 호스트/포트 재정의

예를 들어 컨테이너 내부와 같이 Windows Subsystem for Linux(WSL) 내에서 이 MCP 서버를 실행하려는 경우, Windows에서 실행 중인 AW 서버는 127.0.0.1에서 사용할 수 없습니다. 표준 localhost 연결을 재정의하려면 아래와 같이 AW_API_BASE 환경 변수나 --aw-api-base 플래그를 사용하세요:

# 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

참고: AW 서버는 연결에 사용되는 이름에 민감할 수 있지만, 실행 중인 컴퓨터 이름에 .local 접미사가 붙은 이름은 허용합니다.

쿼리 예시

Claude에서 시도해 볼 수 있는 몇 가지 쿼리 예시입니다:

모든 버킷 나열: "내가 가진 ActivityWatch 버킷은 무엇인가요?"
애플리케이션 사용 요약 가져오기: "오늘 가장 많이 사용한 애플리케이션을 보여줄 수 있나요?"
브라우징 기록 보기: "오늘 가장 많은 시간을 보낸 웹사이트는 어디인가요?"
생산성 확인: "오늘 생산성 앱에서 보낸 시간은 얼마나 되나요?"
설정 보기: "내 ActivityWatch 설정은 무엇인가요?" 또는 "ActivityWatch에서 특정 설정을 확인할 수 있나요?"

사용 가능한 도구

list-buckets

선택적 유형 필터링을 사용하여 사용 가능한 모든 ActivityWatch 버킷을 나열합니다.

매개변수:

type (선택 사항): 유형별로 버킷 필터링 (예: "window", "web", "afk")
includeData (선택 사항): 응답에 버킷 데이터 포함

run-query

ActivityWatch의 쿼리 언어(AQL)로 쿼리를 실행합니다.

매개변수:

timeperiods: 문자열 배열로 형식이 지정된 쿼리할 기간. 날짜 범위의 경우 ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"] 형식을 사용하세요.
query: ActivityWatch 쿼리 언어로 된 쿼리 문 배열. 각 항목은 세미콜론으로 구분된 문장이 포함된 완전한 쿼리여야 합니다.
name (선택 사항): 쿼리 이름 (캐싱에 사용)

중요: 각 쿼리 문자열에는 세미콜론으로 구분된 여러 문장이 포함된 완전한 쿼리가 포함되어야 합니다.

요청 형식 예시:

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

참고:

timeperiods는 슬래시가 포함된 사전 형식의 날짜 범위를 가져야 합니다.
query 배열의 각 항목은 모든 문장이 포함된 완전한 쿼리여야 합니다.

get-events

ActivityWatch 버킷에서 원시 이벤트를 가져옵니다.

매개변수:

bucketId: 이벤트를 가져올 버킷의 ID
start (선택 사항): ISO 형식의 시작 날짜/시간
end (선택 사항): ISO 형식의 종료 날짜/시간
limit (선택 사항): 반환할 최대 이벤트 수

get-settings

서버에서 ActivityWatch 설정을 가져옵니다.

매개변수:

key (선택 사항): 모든 설정 대신 특정 설정 키 가져오기

쿼리 언어 예시

ActivityWatch는 간단한 쿼리 언어를 사용합니다. 다음은 몇 가지 일반적인 패턴입니다:

// 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;

구성

서버는 기본적으로 http://localhost:5600에서 ActivityWatch API에 연결합니다. ActivityWatch 인스턴스가 다른 호스트나 포트에서 실행 중인 경우, 위의 'ActivityWatch 서버 호스트/포트 재정의' 섹션에 설명된 대로 재정의할 수 있습니다.

문제 해결

ActivityWatch가 실행 중이지 않음

ActivityWatch가 실행 중이지 않으면 서버에 연결 오류가 표시됩니다. ActivityWatch가 실행 중이며 지정된 호스트/포트 주소(http://localhost:5600, 재정의하지 않은 경우)에서 액세스할 수 있는지 확인하세요.

쿼리 오류

쿼리 오류가 발생하는 경우:

쿼리 구문을 확인하세요.
버킷 ID가 올바른지 확인하세요.
기간(timeperiods)에 데이터가 포함되어 있는지 확인하세요.
자세한 내용은 ActivityWatch 로그를 확인하세요.

Claude/MCP 쿼리 형식 문제

이 MCP 서버를 통해 쿼리를 실행할 때 Claude가 오류를 보고한다면, 형식 문제일 가능성이 높습니다. 프롬프트에서 쿼리가 다음 형식을 정확히 따르는지 확인하세요:

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

일반적인 문제:

기간 형식이 올바르지 않음 (배열 내의 단일 문자열로 "시작/종료" 형식이어야 함)
쿼리 문이 하나의 문자열로 결합되지 않고 별도의 배열 요소로 분할됨

가장 흔한 형식 문제

가장 빈번한 오류는 Claude가 각 쿼리 문을 다음과 같이 별도의 배열 요소로 분할하는 경우입니다:

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

이는 잘못된 방식입니다. 대신 모든 문장은 배열 내의 단일 문자열에 있어야 합니다:

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

Claude에게 프롬프트할 때

Claude에게 프롬프트할 때는 형식을 매우 명확하게 지정하고 예시를 사용하세요. 예를 들어 다음과 같이 말하세요:

"timeperiods를 ["2024-10-28/2024-10-29"]로, query를 ["statement1; statement2; RETURN = result;"]로 설정하여 쿼리를 실행해 줘. 중요: 모든 쿼리 문은 별도의 배열 요소로 분할하지 말고 배열 내의 단일 문자열로 작성해야 해."

기여

기여를 환영합니다! 자유롭게 Pull Request를 제출해 주세요.

라이선스

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 서버

기능

설치

npm을 통한 설치 (곧 제공 예정)

소스에서 빌드

사전 요구 사항

사용법

Claude for Desktop과 함께 사용하기

Linux에서 Gemini CLI와 함께 rootless podman 컨테이너 사용하기

ActivityWatch 서버 호스트/포트 재정의

쿼리 예시

사용 가능한 도구

list-buckets

run-query

get-events

get-settings

쿼리 언어 예시

구성

문제 해결

ActivityWatch가 실행 중이지 않음

쿼리 오류

Claude/MCP 쿼리 형식 문제

가장 흔한 형식 문제

Claude에게 프롬프트할 때

기여

라이선스

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

TripleWhale MCP Serverofficial

Appeared in Searches