imessage-mcp

by camfortin

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving messages by chat or search, listing chats, resolving contacts, sending messages, and getting self info. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, resolve_, search_, send_), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering core iMessage operations (read, send, search, list, resolve), the set is well-scoped and each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers essential CRUD-like operations (read via chat or search, send, list) plus contact resolution and self-info. Missing message deletion or editing, but those are uncommon for MCP servers, so no significant gap.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by noting ordering and output content. However, it omits safety info (read-only nature), pagination behavior, and constraints on the 'recent' definition. The presence of an output schema partially offsets the need for return details, but behavioral traits like side effects are not addressed.
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 concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the core purpose and key details. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 available output schema and sibling tools, the description minimally covers the tool's purpose. However, it lacks clarity on scope ('recent' definition, whether all chats or user-specific), filtering capabilities, and potential limitations. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but the context is not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'newest-first' and output content but does not explain the only parameter 'limit', its effect, or default behavior. The description assumes the tool returns all recent chats, while the schema includes a default limit of 20, creating ambiguity.
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 tool's action ('List recent chats'), specifies ordering ('newest-first'), and mentions included content ('previews and unread counts'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_chat_messages (messages within a chat) and search_imessages (content search).
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 its siblings. It does not state explicit use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to prefer this over get_chat_messages or search_imessages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions case-insensitive LIKE search and ISO8601 dates but omits details like pagination, rate limits, whether results are limited to the user's account, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, and the second adds relevant detail about date format.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are partially covered. However, the description lacks context on search scope (e.g., all messages or current account), limitations, or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for an informed agent decision.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' searches message bodies and that 'since'/'until' are ISO8601 dates, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain 'from_contact' or 'limit', leaving gaps.
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 it performs a case-insensitive LIKE search over message bodies and specifies date format as ISO8601. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_chat_messages' (which likely retrieves messages by chat) and 'send_imessage' (which sends messages).
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 a search tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'resolve_contact' or 'list_recent_chats'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Reveals that attachments are metadata only and that 'since' expects ISO8601 datetime. No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral disclosure. Does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but it's implied.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, parameter options, and a key behavioral note. No unnecessary words.
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?
While output schema exists, description lacks details on return format, pagination, or behavior when both identifiers provided. Attachments mention is good, but missing parameter defaults (limit=50).
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?
Adds meaning for chat_id/handle and clarifies 'since' format, but does not describe 'limit' parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but not fully.
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?
Description clearly states it returns messages for a chat, and specifies two ways to identify the chat (chat_id or handle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_imessages that search across chats.
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?
Provides context on how to specify the chat (chat_id or handle), but does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_imessages. No exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions using Messages.app but does not disclose important traits like whether it costs money, requires permissions, or the consequences of sending. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 concise with two main sentences and a clean list. Every sentence is useful, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention return value or error behavior, but overall it is complete enough for a send action.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful detail for all three parameters: recipient format, body text, and service default. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Send an iMessage/SMS via Messages.app.' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_chat_messages and search_imessages, which are read-only.
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 provides details on recipient formats and service default, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or discuss trade-offs between iMessage and SMS.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation returning handles and metadata, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or specific data format. The output schema exists but is not described.
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?
A single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. Every word adds value.
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?
Given zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple info-retrieval tool. It covers the essential purpose and scope, though it could mention that it's read-only.
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?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what is returned (self-handles and metadata), which goes beyond the empty schema.
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 verb 'Return' and the objects 'self-handles and chat.db metadata', specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings which deal with messages, chats, contacts, and sending.
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 phrase 'for sanity checks' provides context on when to use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. Usage guidance is implied but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it checks a local JSON cache first, then falls back to macOS AddressBook SQLite, and writes new hits back to the cache. This is valuable for an agent to understand side effects and performance.
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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: defining the function, specifying input options with format hints, and explaining the cache behavior. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description provides sufficient information for using the tool given its two optional parameters, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema. It covers purpose, input selection, and caching behavior, though it omits error cases or output details (covered by schema).
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the format for `handle` (phone or email) and that exactly one of `handle` or `name` should be provided. It adds value beyond the raw schema properties.
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 it resolves iMessage handles to names and vice versa, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_chat_messages, send_imessage) which deal with messaging rather than contact resolution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that either `handle` or `name` must be provided, with format hints for handle (phone or email). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context with sibling tools makes its unique role clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

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

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

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![imessage-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/camfortin/imessage-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/camfortin/imessage-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![imessage-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/camfortin/imessage-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/camfortin/imessage-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/camfortin/imessage-mcp'

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