Unipile を使用して複数のメッセージング プラットフォーム間のメッセージにアクセスするための MCP サーバー。
Unipileメッセージングプラットフォームとの統合を実現するモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー実装。このサーバーにより、AIモデルは標準化されたインターフェースを介して、様々なメッセージングプラットフォーム（モバイル、メール、WhatsApp、LinkedIn、Slack、Twitter、Telegram、Instagram、Messenger）からのメッセージとやり取りできるようになります。
モデルコンテキストプロトコルとその動作の詳細については、 Anthropic の MCP ドキュメントを参照してください。
Related MCP server: iMessage Max
Unipile のサービスをご利用いただくには、サブスクリプションが必要です。私は Unipile から報酬を受け取っていません。Unipile が効果的に機能するため、愛用している一ユーザーです。サブスクリプションと機能の詳細については、 Unipile Messaging API ページをご覧ください。
Unipileを使えば、幅広いソーシャルプラットフォーム間でシームレスにコミュニケーションできます。これには、以下のような人気のメッセージングサービスが含まれます。
LinkedIn : Unipile インターフェースを通じて、専門的な連絡先と交流し、メッセージを送信し、LinkedIn でのやり取りを直接管理します。
WhatsApp : メッセージを送受信し、チャットを管理し、連絡先との接続を維持します。
Instagram : フォロワーと交流し、ダイレクト メッセージに返信し、Instagram でのコミュニケーションを管理します。
Messenger : Facebook Messenger を通じて友人や家族とコミュニケーションします。
Telegram : Telegram のチャットやメッセージに簡単にアクセスできます。
Unipileとこれらのプラットフォームの連携により、統一されたコミュニケーションエクスペリエンスが実現し、異なるサービス間のやり取りの管理が容易になります。これは、LinkedInをプロフェッショナルネットワーキングに活用しているユーザーにとって特に有益です。ClaudeなどのAI機能を活用してコミュニケーション戦略を強化できるためです。
サーバーは次のリソースを公開します。
unipile://messages : 接続されたメッセージング プラットフォームからのメッセージへのアクセスを提供する動的リソース
チャットからすべてのメッセージを取得します。
Get all messages from chat ID "chat_123"サーバーは、Unipile データにアクセスするためのいくつかのツールを提供します。
unipile_get_chat_messages
ページネーションサポートを使用して特定のチャットからすべてのメッセージを取得します
入力: chat_id (必須)、batch_size (オプション、デフォルト: 100)
戻り値: メッセージオブジェクトの配列
Unipile DSNとAPIキーが必要です。これらはUnipileダッシュボードから取得できます。
UNIPILE_DSN : Unipile DSN (例: api8.unipile.com:13851)
UNIPILE_API_KEY : Unipile APIキー
注意: API キーは安全に保管し、バージョン管理にコミットしないでください。
イメージはローカルでビルドすることも、Docker Hubからプルすることもできます。このイメージはLinuxプラットフォーム用にビルドされています。
Linux/amd64
Linux/arm64
Linux/arm/v7
docker pull buryhuang/mcp-unipile:latestdocker build -t mcp-unipile .コンテナを実行します。
docker run \
-e UNIPILE_DSN=your_dsn_here \
-e UNIPILE_API_KEY=your_api_key_here \
buryhuang/mcp-unipile:latest複数のプラットフォーム向けにDockerイメージを公開するには、 docker buildxコマンドを使用します。以下の手順に従ってください。
新しいビルダー インスタンスを作成します(まだ作成していない場合)。
docker buildx create --use複数のプラットフォーム用のイメージをビルドしてプッシュします。
docker buildx build --platform linux/amd64,linux/arm64,linux/arm/v7 -t buryhuang/mcp-unipile:latest --push .指定されたプラットフォームでイメージが使用可能であることを確認します。
docker buildx imagetools inspect buryhuang/mcp-unipile:latest{
"mcpServers": {
"unipile": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"-i",
"--rm",
"-e",
"UNIPILE_DSN=your_dsn_here",
"-e",
"UNIPILE_API_KEY=your_api_key_here",
"buryhuang/mcp-unipile:latest"
]
}
}
}開発環境をセットアップするには:
pip install -e .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。
Get all connected messaging accounts from supported platforms: Mobile, Mail, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Slack, Twitter, Telegram, Instagram, Messenger. Returns account details including connection parameters, ID, name, creation date, signatures, groups, and sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation and lists return fields, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or how 'all' accounts are determined (e.g., pagination or scope). The behavioral transparency is adequate but incomplete.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a list of platforms and return fields. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined; however, it is not overly verbose.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It does not mention limits or behavior under different conditions, but for a simple read-only list operation, it is fairly complete.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the return value in detail, which compensates for the lack of parameter information.
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 'Get' and the resource 'all connected messaging accounts', listing specific platforms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unipile_get_emails and unipile_get_recent_messages by focusing on accounts rather than emails or messages.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the sibling tools' names imply different resources (emails vs messages vs accounts). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, though explicit guidance would improve the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get recent emails from a specific account. Returns email details including subject, body, sender, recipients, attachments, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of emails to return (default: 10) | |
| account_id | Yes | The ID of the account to get emails from |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists returned fields (subject, body, sender, recipients, attachments, metadata) and mentions 'recent'. This adds value beyond the schema, but does not cover pagination, rate limits, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear verb and resource, front-loaded, no wasted words.
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?
For a simple list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. Could mention pagination or error handling, but not essential.
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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description only adds 'recent' and 'specific account' context, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.
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 'Get recent emails from a specific account' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like unipile_get_accounts and unipile_get_recent_messages.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is implied to use when needing emails from an account, but lacks direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get recent messages from all chats associated with a specific account. Supports messages from: Mobile, Mail, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Slack, Twitter, Telegram, Instagram, Messenger. Returns message details including text content, sender info, timestamps, attachments, reactions, quoted messages, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | The one source ID of of the account to get messages from. It is the id of the source objects in the account's sources array. | |
| batch_size | No | Number of messages to fetch per chat (default: 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details return fields (text, sender, timestamps, attachments, etc.), but lacks disclosure on side effects, rate limits, idempotency, or reading permissions. The 'get' action implies read-only but is not stated.
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?
Two sentences with no superfluous text. First sentence states core action, second enumerates supported platforms and return details. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description explains return details adequately. However, it omits pagination behavior, ordering of messages, and does not mention the default batch size (schema covers it). Minor gap in complete context.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about supported platforms but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond schema. No new semantic value for parameters.
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 tool retrieves recent messages from all chats for a specific account, listing supported platforms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (unipile_get_accounts, unipile_get_emails) by focusing on messages across chat platforms.
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 for fetching recent messages but does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisite actions or when not to use.
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.
v1.0.1unipile_get_accountsunipile_get_emailsunipile_get_recent_messagesScored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource: accounts, emails, and messages. The descriptions clearly separate emails (from a specific account) from recent messages (from all chats), so no ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'unipile_get_<resource>', using snake_case and the same verb prefix, making them predictable.
With 3 tools, the server is focused on read operations for accounts, emails, and messages. This is appropriate for a read-only interface, though it is slightly minimal.
The server covers basic read operations but lacks common features like searching, filtering, or fetching specific messages by ID. For a messaging platform, missing send/delete is acceptable if intended as read-only, but the surface is still limited.
Unified inbox MCP for WhatsApp, Telegram, Email, voice — read/send messages, search, AI agents.
Unified messaging MCP server: WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram, SMS, Messenger & email support inbox
Pass messages between AI agents with cleaning, metadata enrichment, and metered billing.
Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger DMs through official Meta Business APIs.
