MIT
mcp-workflowy
by danield137
ワークフローMCP
Workflowyと連携するためのモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー。このサーバーはWorkflowyにMCP互換のインターフェースを提供し、AIアシスタントがWorkflowyのリストとプログラム的に連携できるようにします。
MCPとは何ですか?
モデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）は、AIモデルが外部ツールやAPIと連携するための標準化された方法です。このサーバーはMCPを実装しており、AIアシスタント（ChatGPTなど）が定義済みのツールセットを通じてWorkflowyリストを読み取り、操作できるようにします。
Related MCP server: workflowy
特徴
Workflowy 統合: ユーザー名/パスワード認証を使用して Workflowy アカウントに接続します
MCP互換性: モデルコンテキストプロトコルの完全サポート
ツール操作: Workflowy でノードを検索、作成、更新、完了/未完了としてマークします。
使用例:
個人的には、プロジェクト管理ツールとしてworkflowyを使用しています。エージェントにメモとコードベースへのアクセスを許可する際は、以下の点に注意すると便利です。
「プロジェクト XYZ のすべてのメモを workflowy で表示する」
「コードベースを確認し、完了したすべてのメモを完了としてマークする」
「このプロジェクトのワークフローのマイルストーンを考慮して、次のタスクを提案してください」
インストール
前提条件
Node.js v18以上
Workflowyアカウント
クイックインストール
# Install the package globally
npm install -g mcp-workflowy
# Or use npx to run it directly
npx mcp-workflowy server start構成
プロジェクト ディレクトリに次の内容を含む.envファイルを作成します。
WORKFLOWY_USERNAME=your_username_here
WORKFLOWY_PASSWORD=your_password_hereあるいは、サーバーを実行するときにこれらの資格情報を環境変数として提供することもできます。
使用法
サーバーの起動
# If installed globally
mcp-workflowy server start
# Using npx
npx mcp-workflowy server start利用可能なツール
この MCP サーバーは、Workflowy と対話するための次のツールを提供します。
list_nodes - Workflowy からノードのリストを取得します (ルートノードまたは指定されたノードの子)
search_nodes - クエリテキストでノードを検索する
create_node - Workflowy に新しいノードを作成します
update_node - 既存のノードのテキストまたは説明を変更する
toggle_complete - ノードを完了または未完了としてマークする
AIアシスタントとの統合
この MCP サーバーを AI アシスタント (ChatGPT など) で使用するには:
上記のようにMCPサーバーを起動します
AIアシスタントをMCPサーバーに接続します（AIアシスタントのドキュメントを参照してください）
AIアシスタントがWorkflowyリストを読み取って操作できるようになります
ワンクリック
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
このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています - 詳細についてはLICENSEファイルを参照してください。
Available Tools
5 toolscreate_nodeB
Create a new node
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the verb 'create', which is consistent but minimal.
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. It wastes no words, though it may be slightly too terse for a creation tool without additional context.
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 parameters, the description fails to explain what kind of node is created, its default properties, or how the result is communicated. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4 as per guidelines.
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 'Create a new node' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_nodes or search_nodes. However, it lacks context such as where the node is created (e.g., current document).
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 instead of siblings like update_node or toggle_complete. The description does not mention prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_nodesARead-onlyIdempotent
List nodes in Workflowy. If a parentId is provided, it lists the child nodes of that parent. If omitted, it lists the root nodes.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parentId | No | ID of the parent node to list children from. If omitted, returns root nodes. |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds conditional behavior on parentId, but does not disclose pagination or return format.
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 extraneous text, clearly conveying the core functionality.
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 read-only list tool, the description is adequate, though it could mention that it returns a list of node objects without specifying fields.
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 has 100% description coverage; the description repeats the same information about parentId without adding new semantics.
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 'List nodes in Workflowy' and explains the behavior based on parentId, distinguishing it from siblings like create_node or toggle_complete.
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 when to use parentId (to list children) and when not (root nodes), but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like search_nodes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_nodesBRead-onlyIdempotent
Search nodes in Workflowy
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query to find matching nodes |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond confirming it is a search operation. No behavioral specifics like result limits or query syntax are disclosed.
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 sentence that immediately conveys the action. It is concise and front-loaded with no filler.
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 is simple with one parameter, but the description does not explain the output format or behavior when no matches are found, which is necessary given 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 already describes the 'query' parameter with a description. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which has 100% 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 states the tool does a search on nodes. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_nodes, which might also retrieve nodes.
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 list_nodes or other siblings. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
toggle_completeB
Toggle completion status of a node
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | ID of the node to toggle completion status | |
| completed | Yes | Whether the node should be marked as complete (true) or incomplete (false) |
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 the full burden. It implies mutation but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or that the 'completed' parameter makes it a setter rather than a true toggle. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no wasted words. Efficient but very brief; could have elaborated slightly 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?
For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate but lacks mention of return values or errors. No output schema exists, so some extra context would be helpful.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('toggle completion status') and the resource ('node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_node or update_node which have different purposes.
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, such as update_node which could also set the completed field. The description lacks context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_nodeBDestructiveIdempotent
Update an existing node
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | ID of the node to update | |
| name | No | New name/title for the node | |
| description | No | New description/note for the node |
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). Description does not add beyond this, missing details like partial update behavior or response structure.
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, direct, no fluff. Could be slightly enriched without losing 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?
Adequate for a simple update tool, but lacks mention of return value or side effects (e.g., what happens if node not found). No output schema to fill the gap.
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 description adds no value beyond what schema already provides. Baseline score 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?
Clearly states 'Update an existing node' – verb+resource, distinct from siblings (create, list, search, toggle).
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 (e.g., create_node for new nodes, toggle_complete for status). Lacks context for selection.
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 updates
- First observed
create_node - First observed
list_nodes - First observed
search_nodes - First observed
toggle_complete - First observed
update_node
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct action—create, list, search, update, and toggle completion—so there is no major ambiguity. update_node and toggle_complete overlap somewhat in that both modify a node, but their purposes are clear enough. list_nodes and search_nodes are clearly differentiated by hierarchy vs. content search.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tools mostly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_node, list_nodes, update_node, search_nodes). toggle_complete breaks the pattern slightly by referencing a state rather than the node object, but all names remain simple and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Workflowy nodes. Each tool has a clear purpose and there is no bloat or minimalism that detracts from the domain.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers create, list, search, update, and toggle completion, but lacks a delete_node or a dedicated get_node operation. These are notable gaps in the node lifecycle, though agents can partially work around them with search and list.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for Linear project management and issue tracking
Turn outlines and hierarchical notes into interactive mind maps through a hosted remote MCP server.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA WorkFlowy MCP Server with node creation, recursive gets, updates, completions, search and replace (with a dry run mode), usage reports, a configurable list of exposed commands and customizable log output.1072MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for mind-wiki — access your personal knowledge wiki from any directory or MCP-compatible client.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server to read and manage your Microsoft To Do tasks through the Microsoft Graph To Do API.MIT