A
licenseB
qualityC
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides access to the Fastmail API, enabling AI assistants to interact with email, contacts, and calendar data.
38
MIT
DAV MCP Server
by jahfer
DAV MCP サーバー
MCP 経由でカレンダー、連絡先、ファイルにアクセスしましょう。
導入
このプロジェクトは、CalDAV、CardDAV、WebDAVサービスとの連携を可能にするモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバーです。環境変数で設定されたFastmailとApple iCloudアカウントの両方をサポートします。
Related MCP server: iCloud CalDAV MCP Connector
設定
前提条件: Node.js がインストールされていることを確認してください。
リポジトリのクローンを作成する: このリポジトリをローカル マシンにクローンします。
依存関係をインストールします。プロジェクト ディレクトリに移動して、次を実行します。
npm installこれをグローバル コマンドとして公開または使用する場合、インストール後に
npm linkを実行するか、npm install -g .でグローバルにインストールすることもできます (必要に応じて、package.jsonグローバル インストール用に構成した後)。
環境変数の設定
DAV サービスに接続するには、アプリケーションの実行時に次の環境変数を設定する必要があります。
DAV_PROVIDER: DAVサービスプロバイダを指定します。fastmailまたはicloud（大文字と小文字は区別されませんfastmailに設定してください。DAV_USERNAME: サービスで使用するユーザー名 (例: Fastmail のメールアドレスや Apple ID)。DAV_PASSWORD: サービス用のアプリ固有のパスワード。セキュリティのため、アプリ固有のパスワードの使用を強くお勧めします。
MCP構成
このサーバーを使用するには、MCP設定ファイルでmcpServerとして設定する必要があります。以下に例を示します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"myDavServices": {
// You can name this anything you like
"command": "npx", // Or simply "node" if it's in your PATH
"args": ["-y", "@jahfer/dav-mcp-server"], // Path to the main script
"env": {
"DAV_PROVIDER": "icloud", // or "fastmail"
"DAV_USERNAME": "your-username",
"DAV_PASSWORD": "your-app-specific-password"
}
}
}
}利用可能なツール
構成が完了すると、この MCP サーバーは次のツールを提供します。
カレンダー（CalDAV）
get_my_calendars: 利用可能なすべてのカレンダーを一覧表示します。get_calendar_events: 指定されたカレンダーからイベントを取得します。オプションで開始日時と終了日時を指定して、特定の範囲内のイベントを絞り込むこともできます。
連絡先（CardDAV）
get_my_contact_lists: すべての連絡先アドレス帳を一覧表示します。get_contacts_from_list: 指定されたアドレス帳から連絡先を取得します。
ファイル（WebDAV - 主にFastmail用）
list_my_files_and_folders: WebDAV ストレージ内の指定されたパス (デフォルトはルート) 内のファイルとフォルダーを一覧表示します。get_file_or_folder_details: 指定されたファイルまたはフォルダーの URL のメタデータを取得します。
使用法
構成で MCP サーバーをセットアップした後、MCP クライアント内でサーバー定義と対話するコマンドまたは機能を使用して、カレンダー、連絡先、およびファイルを管理できます。
Available Tools
6 toolsget_calendar_eventsD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendarUrl | Yes | The unique identifier (URL) of the calendar from which to fetch events. You can get this from 'get_my_calendars'. | |
| timeRangeEnd | No | ISO 8601 datetime for end of range | |
| timeRangeStart | No | ISO 8601 datetime for start of range |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_contacts_from_listD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addressBookUrl | Yes | The unique identifier (URL) of the contact list from which to fetch contacts. You can get this from 'get_my_contact_lists'. |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_file_or_folder_detailsD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileUrl | Yes | The unique identifier (URL) of the file or folder to get details for. You can get this from 'list_my_files_and_folders'. |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_my_calendarsD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_my_contact_listsD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_my_files_and_foldersD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | The specific folder path to list. For example, 'Documents/Work'. If empty, lists files and folders in the main (root) directory. |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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.
6 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
get_calendar_events - First observed
get_contacts_from_list - First observed
get_file_or_folder_details - First observed
get_my_calendars - First observed
get_my_contact_lists - First observed
list_my_files_and_folders
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Scored across 6 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different resources: calendar events, contacts, files/folders, calendars, contact lists, and file listings. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' or 'list_' prefixes, using snake_case throughout. This predictability enhances readability and usability for agents.
Tool Count4/5
Six tools is reasonable for a DAV server covering calendars, contacts, and files, but it feels slightly thin as it lacks update/delete operations. The count is appropriate for basic read-only access, though not fully comprehensive.
Completeness2/5
The toolset is severely incomplete for a DAV server, covering only read operations (get/list) with no create, update, or delete tools. This will cause agent failures when full CRUD functionality is needed, as the surface lacks essential lifecycle coverage.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
An MCP server that provides read access to your cloud storage providers, bank accounts and more.
Hosted email MCP for your own Gmail, Outlook.com, Microsoft 365, iCloud or IMAP inbox: read, search, draft, reply in thread, forward and file mail. It moves or flags up to 500 messages in one call, and a send leaves exactly one copy in Sent. A calendar is a separate connection, and connecting one adds diary and scheduling tools.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn HTTP Model Context Protocol (MCP) server exposing iCloud Calendar (CalDAV) tools so MCP-aware clients can list calendars, read events, and create/update/delete events using an iCloud app-specific password.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for Apple Calendar, Mail, Reminders, and Files on macOS using native frameworks.33 npm21MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceUnified MCP server for Fastmail email (JMAP), calendar (CalDAV), and contacts (CardDAV). Enables sending emails, managing events, and syncing contacts through natural language.MIT