How do I use mcp-progress?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-progress Start progress for processing files with total 100" 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-progress

by jaume-ferrarons

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

JavaScript

MCP Progress Server

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that provides notifications and progress tracking for long-running operations.

Features

Notifications: Display system notifications using node-notifier
Progress Tracking: Track progress of long-running operations with MCP-compatible progress notifications

Related MCP server: webhook-mcp

Installation

For use with npx (recommended)

npx mcp-progress

For global installation

npm install -g mcp-progress

For local development

git clone git@github.com:jaume-ferrarons/mcp-progress.git
cd mcp-progress
npm install

Usage

Run the server:

npm start

Or use it as an MCP server in your MCP client configuration.

Tools

notify

Display a notification to the user.

Parameters:

title (string, required): Notification title
message (string, required): Notification message
sound (boolean, optional): Play notification sound (default: false)

Note: Notifications stay visible until dismissed by the user.

Example:

{
  "title": "Task Complete",
  "message": "Your operation finished successfully",
  "sound": true
}

start_progress

Start tracking progress for a long-running operation. Creates a sticky notification that updates as progress changes.

Parameters:

progressToken (string, required): Unique identifier for this progress operation
title (string, required): Title of the operation
total (number, optional): Total number of steps

Example:

{
  "progressToken": "file-processing-1",
  "title": "Processing files",
  "total": 100
}

update_progress

Update progress for an ongoing operation. Updates the sticky notification with current progress.

Parameters:

progressToken (string, required): Progress operation identifier
current (number, required): Current progress value
total (number, optional): Total progress value (updates total if provided)
message (string, optional): Progress message

Example:

{
  "progressToken": "file-processing-1",
  "current": 45,
  "message": "Processing file 45 of 100"
}

complete_progress

Mark a progress operation as complete. Updates the notification with completion status and plays a sound.

Parameters:

progressToken (string, required): Progress operation identifier
message (string, optional): Completion message

Example:

{
  "progressToken": "file-processing-1",
  "message": "All files processed successfully"
}

Example Workflow

// Start progress tracking
await callTool('start_progress', {
  progressToken: 'data-sync-1',
  title: 'Syncing data',
  total: 50
});

// Update progress periodically
for (let i = 1; i <= 50; i++) {
  await callTool('update_progress', {
    progressToken: 'data-sync-1',
    current: i,
    message: `Processing item ${i}`
  });
}

// Complete the operation
await callTool('complete_progress', {
  progressToken: 'data-sync-1',
  message: 'Sync completed'
});

// Send a notification
await callTool('notify', {
  title: 'Sync Complete',
  message: 'Data synchronization finished successfully',
  sound: true
});

MCP Configuration

Add to your MCP client configuration:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "progress": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "mcp-progress"]
    }
  }
}

Or if installed globally:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "progress": {
      "command": "mcp-progress"
    }
  }
}

License

ISC

VS Code Setup

This project is configured to work with GitHub Copilot in VS Code. The MCP server configuration is in .vscode/mcp.json.

To use with Copilot:

Open this project in VS Code
Make sure GitHub Copilot Chat is enabled
The MCP server will be automatically available in Copilot Chat
Use the tools: @workspace /tools to see available tools

You can also configure it globally by adding to your VS Code settings:

{
  "github.copilot.chat.mcp.enabled": true
}

Available Tools

4 tools

complete_progressB

Mark a progress operation as complete

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No	Completion message (optional)
`progressToken`	Yes	Progress operation identifier

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, or state requirements. The optional 'message' parameter suggests completion messaging, but the description doesn't explain the behavior or consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, concise and unambiguous. It front-loads the action, but it could benefit from a brief note on lifecycle context. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimal for a lifecycle operation. It doesn't explain that the progressToken must reference an active progress operation, nor does it mention the relationship to start_progress. The optional message and completion semantics are unclear. Given the simplicity and schema coverage, some gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about progressToken format, message constraints, or usage context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' and clearly identifies the resource 'progress operation' and action 'complete'. It distinguishes from siblings like start_progress and update_progress, as 'complete' is a distinct lifecycle stage.

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 this tool versus notify, start_progress, or update_progress. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that a progress operation must be in progress) or lifecycle placement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

notifyB

Display a notification to the user

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sound`	No	Play notification sound (default: false)
`title`	Yes	Notification title
`message`	Yes	Notification message

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it displays a notification, with no mention of side effects (e.g., whether sound plays), blocking behavior, permission requirements, or whether the notification is system-level or in-app. While it does not contradict anything, it provides minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Display a notification to the user'. It conveys the core action immediately with no redundant words or filler, earning a top score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no output schema and a fully documented parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not explaining what kind of notification is shown, whether it blocks, or how it relates to the sibling progress tools. Given the simplicity, a short description is acceptable, but the missing usage context prevents a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as every parameter (title, message, sound) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, but because the schema already provides full details, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate.

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 'Display a notification to the user' uses a specific verb (Display), names the resource (notification), and specifies the recipient (user). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling progress-related tools (start_progress, update_progress, complete_progress), which are about tracking progress rather than showing a standalone notification.

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 this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual usage hints, such as whether it should be used alongside progress tools or for alerts. This is a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

start_progressB

Start tracking progress for a long-running operation

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title of the operation
`total`	No	Total number of steps (optional)
`progressToken`	Yes	Unique identifier for this progress operation

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 that it 'starts tracking progress', implying a state change, but does not explain idempotency, the need to pair with update/complete tools, or what happens with duplicate progressTokens. This is a significant gap for a state-initiating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action verb. It is concise and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a simple signature and high schema coverage, but the description does not articulate the relationship with sibling tools or the expected lifecycle (start → update → complete). It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for proper workflow usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for progressToken, title, and total. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear action verb 'Start tracking' with a specific resource 'progress' and a context 'long-running operation'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (notify, update_progress, complete_progress) by indicating the initiation phase, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before update_progress/complete_progress or that it is for initiating a progress tracking session. The sibling tools are not referenced in the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

update_progressC

Update progress for an ongoing operation

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	No	Total progress value (optional, updates total if provided)
`current`	Yes	Current progress value
`message`	No	Progress message (optional)
`progressToken`	Yes	Progress operation identifier

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'update progress' without explaining side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or how it interacts with the progress token. It adds no context beyond the operation name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the overall behavior, the optionality semantics of 'total' and 'message', or what happens when the progress token is invalid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to because the schema is thorough.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'update' and resource 'progress', and the qualifier 'for an ongoing operation' distinguishes it from start_progress and complete_progress siblings. However, it doesn't elaborate on the distinction beyond what the sibling names imply.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'ongoing operation' vaguely suggests mid-operation updates, but there are no exclusions or mentions of notify, start_progress, or complete_progress.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

4 tool updatesv1.0.4Aug 2, 2026
- First observedcomplete_progress
- First observednotify
- First observedstart_progress
- First observedupdate_progress

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-08-02 23:30 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: notify sends a user notification, while start/update/complete handle the lifecycle of a progress operation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Three tools follow the verb_noun pattern (start_progress, update_progress, complete_progress), but notify is a bare verb without an object. This is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a progress-tracking server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the workflow, and the count feels neither too thin nor overloaded.

Completeness4/5

The progress lifecycle (start, update, complete) is covered, with an additional notify capability. A possible gap is the lack of an explicit cancel/abort operation, but the core workflow is complete enough for most use cases.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Product Management Mcp D
io.github.varvararatta
MCP server for Product Management
Product Management Project Management
2
Os Automation Mcp C
io.github.varvararatta
MCP server for OS Automation
OS Automation Command Line
2
Support Service Management Mcp D
io.github.varvararatta
MCP server for Support & Service Management
Customer Support Project Management
2
Sensact
io.github.sensact-agents
An authenticated remote MCP server for user-owned devices and one-shot capability invocation.
OS Automation App Automation
2

Related MCP Servers

MCP Task
Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents RAG Systems
just-every
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
Async MCP server for running long-running AI tasks with real-time progress monitoring, enabling users to start, monitor, and manage complex AI workflows across multiple models.
Updated 6 days ago (2026-09-03 21:08 UTC)
6
34
5
MIT
webhook-mcp
Communication Developer Tools
noobnooc
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that sends webhook notifications to a configured URL, enabling AI assistants to notify users when long-running tasks complete.
Updated a year ago (2025-05-01 05:16 UTC)
28
3
-
MCP Async Bridge Server
Developer Tools Agent Orchestration
mako10k
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Adds async processing to any MCP server, with timeout, task management, and subscription to task status via resources.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-10-30 09:54 UTC)
17
MIT
task-manager
Project Management Developer Tools
simpleye1
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for Nova Agent progress reporting. Enables updating execution sessions and managing steps within tasks.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-25 02:14 UTC)
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jaume-ferrarons/mcp-progress'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server