DAV MCP Server
DAV MCP-сервер
Получите доступ к своим календарям, контактам и файлам через MCP!
Введение
Этот проект представляет собой сервер Model Context Protocol (MCP), который позволяет вам взаимодействовать с вашими службами CalDAV, CardDAV и WebDAV. Он поддерживает как учетные записи Fastmail, так и Apple iCloud, настроенные через переменные среды.
Related MCP server: iCloud CalDAV MCP Connector
Настраивать
Предварительные условия : убедитесь, что у вас установлен Node.js.
Клонировать репозиторий : клонировать этот репозиторий на локальный компьютер.
Установка зависимостей : Перейдите в каталог проекта и запустите:
npm installЕсли вы собираетесь опубликовать или использовать это как глобальную команду, вы также можете запустить
npm linkпосле установки или установить ее глобально с помощьюnpm install -g .(после настройкиpackage.jsonдля глобальной установки, если это необходимо).
Конфигурация переменных среды
Для подключения к службам DAV вам необходимо установить следующие переменные среды при запуске приложения:
DAV_PROVIDER: Указывает вашего поставщика услуг DAV. Установитеfastmailилиicloud(без учета регистра).DAV_USERNAME: Ваше имя пользователя для сервиса (например, ваш адрес электронной почты Fastmail или Apple ID).DAV_PASSWORD: Пароль приложения для сервиса. Настоятельно рекомендуется использовать пароли приложения для безопасности.
Конфигурация МКП
Чтобы использовать этот сервер, вам нужно настроить его как mcpServer в вашем файле конфигурации MCP. Вот пример:
{
"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"
}
}
}
}Доступные инструменты
После настройки этот сервер MCP предоставляет следующие инструменты:
Календарь (CalDAV)
get_my_calendars: выводит список всех доступных календарей.get_calendar_events: Извлекает события из указанного календаря. Вы можете дополнительно указать начальную и конечную дату/время для фильтрации событий в определенном диапазоне.
Контакты (CardDAV)
get_my_contact_lists: выводит список всех ваших адресных книг.get_contacts_from_list: Извлекает контакты из указанной адресной книги.
Файлы (WebDAV — в первую очередь для Fastmail)
list_my_files_and_folders: выводит список файлов и папок по указанному пути в хранилище WebDAV (по умолчанию — в корневом каталоге).get_file_or_folder_details: извлекает метаданные для указанного URL-адреса файла или папки.
Использование
После настройки сервера MCP в вашей конфигурации вы можете использовать команды или функции в вашем клиенте MCP, которые взаимодействуют с определением сервера для управления вашими календарями, контактами и файлами.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_calendar_eventsD
| 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Scored across 6 tools
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.
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.
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.
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
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
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides access to the Fastmail API, enabling AI assistants to interact with email, contacts, and calendar data.38MIT
- 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