MCP-Server für ntfy.sh-Benachrichtigungen, asynchrones Agenten-Messaging und Human-in-the-Loop-Workflows.
Er bietet eine einfache Möglichkeit für einen MCP-Client, Nachrichten an ein ntfy-Thema zu senden, ein Live-Abonnement aufrechtzuerhalten und auf Antworten zu warten, ohne eine eigene Messaging-Ebene aufbauen zu müssen.
Dieser Server ist nützlich, wenn Sie Folgendes benötigen:
Push-Benachrichtigungen von einem mit MCP verbundenen Agenten
asynchronen Nachrichtenaustausch zwischen einem Benutzer und einem Agenten
eine einfache menschliche Genehmigungs- oder Antwortschleife über ntfy
einen einfachen Benachrichtigungskanal für lang laufende Workflows
Typischer Ablauf:
Ein Benutzer oder ein externes System veröffentlicht eine Nachricht in einem ntfy-Thema.
Der MCP-Client liest sie über wait-and-read-inbox oder ntfy://inbox.
Der Agent antwortet über send-ntfy.
Der Benutzer erhält die Antwort als ntfy-Push-Benachrichtigung.
Related MCP server: Chat Human MCP Server
Nachrichten mit optionalem Titel, Priorität, Tags und Anhängen veröffentlichen
ein dauerhaftes Abonnement für eine nahezu in Echtzeit erfolgende Zustellung aufrechterhalten
Themen wechseln, ohne den Server neu zu starten
aktuelle Nachrichten im Arbeitsspeicher und auf der Festplatte speichern
Unterstützung für Bearer-Token- und Basic-Auth-geschützte Themen
funktioniert sofort mit dem öffentlichen ntfy.sh
Global installieren:
npm install -g nfty-mcp-serverOder über npx ausführen:
npx -y --yes nfty-mcp-serverErstellen oder verwenden Sie ein Thema auf ntfy.sh. Öffentliche Themen sind einfach einzurichten, wählen Sie also einen eindeutigen Namen.
Fügen Sie dies für Cursor oder VS Code zu Ihren MCP-Einstellungen hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"nfty": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "--yes", "nfty-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"NTFY_TOPIC": "your-topic-name",
"NTFY_BASE_URL": "https://ntfy.sh"
}
}
}
}Fügen Sie für Claude Desktop denselben Servereintrag zu claude_desktop_config.json hinzu.
Hinweise:
NTFY_TOPIC ist erforderlich
--yes behält npx-Installationen im eigenen Cache, anstatt ein Projektverzeichnis zu verschmutzen
Starten Sie Cursor, VS Code oder Claude Desktop neu, damit der MCP-Server geladen wird.
send-ntfyVeröffentlicht eine Nachricht im konfigurierten Thema.
Parameter:
message erforderlich
title optional
priority optional, 1 bis 5
tags optional
attachUrl optional
Beispiel:
{
"message": "Task completed successfully.",
"title": "Task Status",
"priority": 4
}set-ntfy-topicWechselt das aktive Thema für die aktuelle Sitzung.
Parameter:
topic erforderlich
baseUrl optional
wait-and-read-inboxWartet auf neue Nachrichten im konfigurierten Thema und kehrt zurück, sobald mindestens eine eintrifft.
Parameter:
since optional
sinceTime optional
sinceNow optional, Standard true
Wichtig:
viele MCP-Clients erzwingen ein Timeout von etwa 60 Sekunden
wenn Sie auf eine menschliche Eingabe warten, sollte der Client oder der aufrufende Agent bei einem Timeout einen erneuten Versuch unternehmen
Empfohlenes Prompt-Verhalten für Agenten-Chat-Flows:
Wenn
wait-and-read-inboxbeim Warten auf eine Benutzerantwort ein Timeout erreicht, versuchen Sie es erneut, bis eine neue Nachricht eintrifft.
ntfy://inboxGibt aktuelle Nachrichten für das konfigurierte Thema als JSON zurück.
Beispielstruktur:
{
"topic": "your-topic",
"baseUrl": "https://ntfy.sh",
"messages": [
{
"id": "message-id",
"time": 1234567890,
"title": "Message Title",
"message": "Message body",
"priority": 3,
"tags": ["tag1"],
"topic": "your-topic"
}
]
}Der Server speichert Protokolle, Cache-Dateien und Sperrdateien in einem dedizierten Datenverzeichnis, damit das aktuelle Projekt nicht überladen wird.
Standardspeicherort:
macOS / Linux: ~/.nfty-mcp-server/
Windows: C:\Users\<user>\.nfty-mcp-server\
Dort geschriebene Dateien sind:
nfty-messages.json
nfty-debug.log
nfty-process.log
nfty.lock
Variable | Beschreibung | Standard |
| Thema zum Senden/Empfangen von Nachrichten | erforderlich |
| ntfy-Server-URL |
|
| Bearer-Token | optional |
| Basic-Auth-Benutzername | optional |
| Basic-Auth-Passwort | optional |
| Initialer Backlog-Cursor |
|
| Abruf-Timeout in Millisekunden |
|
| Protokolle/Cache beim Start löschen |
|
| Bestehende Serverinstanzen beenden |
|
| Überschreibung des Datenverzeichnisses | Standard-Plattformpfad |
| Überschreibung der Cache-Datei |
|
Sie können den Server auch direkt konfigurieren:
npx nfty-mcp-server --topic my-topic --base-url https://ntfy.sh --auth-token your-tokenUnterstützte Argumente:
--topic
--base-url oder --server
--auth-token
--username
--password
--since
--log-incoming
Der Server öffnet ein dauerhaftes HTTP-Abonnement für das konfigurierte Thema.
Eingehende Nachrichten werden über diese Live-Verbindung empfangen.
Aktuelle Nachrichten werden im Arbeitsspeicher zwischengespeichert und auf der Festplatte gespeichert.
MCP-Tools stellen Sende-, Themenwechsel- und Warte-/Lese-Verhalten auf Basis dieses Abonnements bereit.
asynchrones Benutzer-Agenten-Messaging
Push-Benachrichtigungen für lang laufende Aufgaben
menschliche Genehmigungsschleifen
einfache Bedienerwarnungen
Agent-zu-Agent-Koordination über ein gemeinsames Thema
git clone https://github.com/harshwasan/NFTY-MCP.git
cd NFTY-MCP
npm install
npm test
npm run devProjektlayout:
NFTY-MCP/
src/server.js
tests/server.test.js
package.jsonNachrichten kommen nicht an:
NTFY_TOPIC überprüfen
bestätigen, dass das Thema existiert und erreichbar ist
das Debug-Protokoll im konfigurierten Datenverzeichnis untersuchen
Verbindungsprobleme:
Netzwerkzugriff auf die konfigurierte NTFY_BASE_URL überprüfen
Authentifizierungseinstellungen überprüfen, falls das Thema geschützt ist
MIT
Publish a message to the configured ntfy topic (set in mcp.json). Supports optional title, priority (1-5), tags, and attachUrl. After sending, use wait-and-read-inbox to wait for responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| priority | No | ||
| attachUrl | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | No | |
| time | No | |
| topic | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| priority | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only describes the action as 'publish' without mentioning side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or rate limits. The description lacks transparency on common behavioral aspects for a send operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides a useful cross-reference. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the basic operation but omits potential constraints (e.g., message length, priority semantics) and error scenarios. It assumes the topic is configured in mcp.json without discussing what happens if it's not. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates by listing all optional parameters and noting priority range (1-5). However, it does not explain the purpose of tags or attachUrl, nor does it provide formats or examples, leaving some semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Publish a message to the configured ntfy topic', specifying the verb and resource. It lists supported optional fields (title, priority, tags, attachUrl). This differentiates it from siblings set-ntfy-topic (configuration) and wait-and-read-inbox (response handling).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to use wait-and-read-inbox after sending, providing sequential guidance. It does not discuss when not to use this tool or prerequisites, but the context is clear: it is for sending a message to a preconfigured topic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change the ntfy topic for this MCP server session (no restart needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | ||
| baseUrl | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | |
| baseUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'no restart needed', but does not explain implications of changing topic mid-session, whether the change is persistent, or what happens to ongoing notifications. Lacks detail on side effects and conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be structured to include more detail without being wasteful; currently it is slightly under-specified for a 2-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple tool but fails to address the baseUrl parameter. Completeness is acceptable for a minimal tool but has a clear gap given the presence of an optional parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 explains the 'topic' parameter implicitly but does not mention the 'baseUrl' parameter at all, leaving its purpose unclear for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Change') and resource ('ntfy topic'), specifying it is for the session and does not require restart. This distinguishes it from siblings send-ntfy and wait-and-read-inbox, which are about message sending and receiving.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (changing topic in session) but does not explicitly state when to use compared to siblings or when not to use it. 'No restart needed' hints at immediate effect but lacks comprehensive guidance on appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Waits for new messages on the configured topic (set in mcp.json) and returns when a new message arrives. Does not return until at least one new message is received. Uses the existing subscription. Note: The MCP protocol has a ~60s client-side timeout that cannot be controlled from the server, but this tool will wait as long as possible within that limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Cursor to filter messages after this point | |
| sinceNow | No | If true (default), only returns messages sent after this call starts. If false, returns all messages since the cursor. | |
| sinceTime | No | Unix timestamp - filter messages with time >= sinceTime |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| messages | Yes | |
| newCount | Yes | |
| lastCursor | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it waits indefinitely (subject to timeout), uses existing subscription, and returns only on new message. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function, each providing essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's waiting behavior and 3 parameters, the description covers the key aspects including timeout and return condition. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the input schema already describes for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (wait for new messages) and resource (inbox on configured topic), and distinguishes from siblings (send-ntfy, set-ntfy-topic) which are different tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the tool blocks until a new message arrives and notes the client-side timeout, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.35send-ntfyset-ntfy-topicwait-and-read-inboxScored across 3 tools
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: sending messages, changing topic, and waiting for incoming messages. No overlap, clear boundaries.
Tool names mix patterns: 'send-ntfy' and 'set-ntfy-topic' use verb-ntfy, but 'wait-and-read-inbox' uses a different structure with 'and'. Inconsistent naming conventions.
Three tools is appropriate for a focused notification server: send, configure topic, and receive. Each tool is necessary and none are redundant.
Core publish/subscribe functionality is covered with send and wait. The set-topic tool adds flexibility. A minor gap is lack of explicit unsubscribe or message history, but not essential for core use.
Push notifications for AI agents - send instant iPhone notifications from any MCP client.
Reach your own phone from an AI agent: notifications, approval questions, reminders, ring, files.
Let your AI agent notify you by email, Slack, Discord, or webhook. One tool: send_notification.
Zero-setup WhatsApp notifications + human-in-the-loop for AI agents — text 'join', send in 60s.
