A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceA simple MCP server that can send notifications on mac devices.
5
9
26
MIT
mcp-gotify
by fastmcp-me
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-gotifysend a push notification to my phone saying 'Task done'"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP-gotify
MCP server for sending gotify push notifications.
Installation
stdio
claude json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-gotify": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcp-gotify"],
"env": {
"GOTIFY_SERVER": "http://localhost:2081", // Change this to your gotify server
"GOTIFY_TOKEN": "YOUR TOKEN" // Get this from gotify
}
}
}
}sse
git clone https://github.com/SecretiveShell/mcp-gotify
cd mcp-gotify
uv run mcp-gotify-sseRelated MCP server: ntfy-mcp
License
MIT
Available Tools
1 toolsend_notificationC
Send a notification to Gotify
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'send a notification,' implying a write operation but omitting details like authentication, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. The agent cannot assess risk or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. While brevity is valued, the lack of detail on parameters or behavior makes it minimally helpful. The sentence structure is clear but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool is incomplete. The description does not cover return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters (title, message). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the agent has no guidance on how to fill in title and message, or what their expected formats or lengths are.
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), the resource (notification), and the target (Gotify). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing the tool's purpose even without sibling tools.
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 or avoid this tool. There are no explicit context triggers, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned, 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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v0.1.1- First observed
send_notification
TDQS
B3/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
With a single tool, naming is trivially consistent.
Tool Count3/5
One tool is minimal for a notification service; it may be sufficient for sending-only but feels thin for a general-purpose server.
Completeness2/5
The server only supports sending notifications, lacking any retrieval, deletion, or management operations that are typical for a notification system.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server wrapping the Tesla Fleet API and TeslaMate API
MCP server for MailTempo's public free temporary email inboxes.
MCP server for Appcircle mobile CI/CD platform.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for sending notifications to ntfy.sh or self-hosted ntfy instances.219MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for ntfy push notifications. Send and poll notifications from any MCP-compatible client.13MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server for sending push notifications via ntfy.sh, supporting customizable titles, priorities, tags, and action buttons.197MIT