Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
turlockmike

apple-notifier-mcp

by turlockmike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Apple Notifier MCP 서버

대장간 배지 Claude Desktop이나 Cline 등 MCP 호환 클라이언트를 통해 기본 macOS 알림을 보내고 시스템 대화 상자와 상호 작용하세요.

필수 조건

  • 맥OS

  • 노드.js >= 18

  • MCP 호환 클라이언트(Claude Desktop, Cline)

Related MCP server: apple-notifier-mcp

설치

Smithery를 통해 설치

Smithery를 통해 Claude Desktop용 Apple Notifier를 자동으로 설치하려면:

지엑스피1

수동 설치

  1. 패키지를 전역으로 설치합니다.

npm install -g apple-notifier-mcp

  1. MCP 구성 파일에 다음을 추가합니다.

Cline의 경우( cline_mcp_settings.json ):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "apple-notifier": {
      "command": "apple-notifier-mcp"
    }
  }
}

Claude Desktop( claude_desktop_config.json )의 경우:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "apple-notifier": {
      "command": "apple-notifier-mcp"
    }
  }
}

특징

알림 보내기

사용자 정의 가능한 콘텐츠로 기본 macOS 알림을 표시합니다.

매개변수:

  • title (필수): 문자열 - 알림의 제목

  • message (필수): 문자열 - 주요 메시지 내용

  • subtitle (선택 사항): 문자열 - 표시할 자막

  • sound (선택 사항): boolean - 기본 알림 사운드를 재생할지 여부(기본값: true)

프롬프트 표시

사용자 입력을 얻기 위해 대화형 대화 상자를 표시합니다.

매개변수:

  • message (필수): 문자열 - 프롬프트 대화 상자에 표시할 텍스트

  • defaultAnswer (선택 사항): 문자열 - 미리 채울 기본 텍스트

  • buttons (선택 사항): string[] - 사용자 정의 버튼 레이블(최대 3개)

  • icon (선택 사항): '참고' | '중지' | '주의' - 표시할 아이콘

텍스트 음성 변환

macOS 텍스트-음성 기능을 사용하세요.

매개변수:

  • text (필수): 문자열 - 말할 텍스트

  • voice (선택 사항): 문자열 - 사용할 음성(기본값은 시스템 음성)

  • rate (선택 사항): 숫자 - 음성 속도(-50~50, 기본값은 0)

스크린샷 찍기

macOS 화면캡처를 사용하여 스크린샷을 캡처하세요.

매개변수:

  • path (필수): 문자열 - 스크린샷을 저장할 경로

  • type (필수): '전체 화면' | '창' | '선택' - 스크린샷 유형

  • format (선택 사항): 'png' | 'jpg' | 'pdf' | 'tiff' - 이미지 형식

  • hideCursor (선택 사항): boolean - 커서를 숨길지 여부

  • shadow (선택 사항): boolean - 창 그림자를 포함할지 여부(창 유형에만 해당)

  • timestamp (선택 사항): boolean - 파일 이름에 타임스탬프 추가

파일 선택

기본 macOS 파일 선택기 대화상자를 엽니다.

매개변수:

  • prompt (선택 사항): 문자열 - 프롬프트 메시지

  • defaultLocation (선택 사항): 문자열 - 기본 디렉토리 경로

  • fileTypes (선택 사항): object - 파일 유형 필터(예: {"public.image": ["png", "jpg"]})

  • multiple (선택 사항): boolean - 여러 파일 선택 허용

사용 예

// Send a notification
await client.use_mcp_tool("apple-notifier", "send_notification", {
  title: "Hello",
  message: "World",
  sound: true
});

// Show a prompt
const result = await client.use_mcp_tool("apple-notifier", "prompt_user", {
  message: "What's your name?",
  defaultAnswer: "John Doe",
  buttons: ["OK", "Cancel"]
});

// Speak text
await client.use_mcp_tool("apple-notifier", "speak", {
  text: "Hello, world!",
  voice: "Samantha",
  rate: -20
});

// Take a screenshot
await client.use_mcp_tool("apple-notifier", "take_screenshot", {
  path: "screenshot.png",
  type: "window",
  format: "png"
});

// Select files
const files = await client.use_mcp_tool("apple-notifier", "select_file", {
  prompt: "Select images",
  fileTypes: {
    "public.image": ["png", "jpg", "jpeg"]
  },
  multiple: true
});

기여하다

개발 설정 및 지침은 CONTRIBUTING.md를 참조하세요.

특허

MIT 라이센스 - 자세한 내용은 LICENSE 파일을 참조하세요.

Available Tools

5 tools
prompt_userA

Display a dialog prompt to get user input

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesText to display in the prompt dialog
defaultAnswerNoOptional default text to pre-fill
buttonsNoOptional custom button labels (max 3)
iconNoOptional icon to display

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose blocking behavior (waits for user input) or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Fully earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple prompt tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It implies the return value (user input) but misses mentioning that the tool blocks execution until input is given.

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 coverage is 100% with clear param descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, scoring baseline 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Display a dialog prompt') and purpose ('to get user input'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_notification' (no input) and 'select_file' (file selection).

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 for general text input but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use (e.g., if a simple notification suffices).

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

select_fileB

Open native file picker dialog

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptNoOptional prompt message
defaultLocationNoOptional default directory path
fileTypesNoOptional file type filter (e.g., {"public.image": ["png", "jpg"]})
multipleNoWhether to allow multiple selection

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations present, so description must carry full burden. It only says 'Open native file picker dialog', omitting behavior like blocking, return values, cancellation handling, or permissions.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded, no extraneous content.

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?

Lacks explanation of return value or behavior for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. Does not cover user interaction results.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states verb 'Open' and resource 'native file picker dialog', distinguishing it from sibling tools like prompt_user, send_notification, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no when-not-to-use or context provided.

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

send_notificationB

Send a notification on macOS using osascript

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTitle of the notification
messageYesMain message content
subtitleNoOptional subtitle
soundNoWhether to play the default notification sound

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It specifies the platform ('macOS') but fails to describe the tool's behavior such as whether it is blocking, what it returns, or error conditions (e.g., if osascript is unavailable). Minimal disclosure beyond the platform.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for its purpose.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description does not address return values, errors, or platform dependencies beyond mentioning macOS. This is insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's param descriptions, which already cover title, message, subtitle, and sound.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('send a notification') and the resource ('macOS' via 'osascript'), and it is distinct from sibling tools which involve user prompts, file selection, speech output, and screenshots.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name and sibling context.

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

speakC

Speak text using macOS text-to-speech

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to speak
voiceNoVoice to use (defaults to system voice)
rateNoSpeech rate (-50 to 50, defaults to 0)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral details. It only states 'Speak text,' omitting any mention of side effects (e.g., audio output), blocking behavior, or system requirements, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is appropriately front-loaded without unnecessary words, though slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool and the comprehensive schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks mention of return value or behavior, which would be expected for a tool with no output schema.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not detract either.

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 ('Speak') and the resource ('text using macOS text-to-speech'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like prompt_user or take_screenshot, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

take_screenshotC

Take a screenshot using macOS screencapture

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath where to save the screenshot
typeYesType of screenshot to take
formatNoImage format
hideCursorNoWhether to hide the cursor
shadowNoWhether to include the window shadow (only for window type)
timestampNoTimestamp to add to filename

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Mentions 'macOS screencapture' to hint at system call, but fails to state that it saves to file, requires display permissions, or that it blocks execution. No behavioral traits disclosed beyond basic action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One sentence, no extra words, efficient. However, lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for such a multi-param tool.

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 output schema and no annotations, description is too sparse. Does not explain return value (saved file path?), does not mention side effects (file write), and omits important nuances like when to use different screenshot types.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides for parameters.

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?

Clear verb (take) and resource (screenshot) with specific underlying tool (macOS screencapture). Distinguishes from sibling tools which are all unrelated. Could mention the types of screenshots (fullscreen, window, selection) but schema covers that.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No explicit context for when to capture full screen vs window vs selection, or when to use timestamp feature.

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.

  1. 5 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedprompt_user
    • First observedselect_file
    • First observedsend_notification
    • First observedspeak
    • First observedtake_screenshot
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinctly different macOS capability: user input, file selection, notification, text-to-speech, and screenshot. No overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow an imperative verb pattern with optional noun (e.g., prompt_user, select_file, send_notification, take_screenshot), and 'speak' fits as a single-verb imperative.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering common macOS interactions, the count is well-scoped for a utility server—not too many and not too few.

Completeness4/5

The set covers core macOS utilities (notification, dialogs, TTS, screenshot), though the server name suggests a narrower focus on notifications. Minor additions like clipboard or open URL could enhance completeness.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches