Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@omnifocus-sync-mcp list my flagged tasks"
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.
A headless MCP server that reads and writes OmniFocus data by talking directly to the Omni Sync Server over WebDAV — no Mac, no running OmniFocus app. It implements OmniFocus's client-side end-to-end encryption in TypeScript, so it can run anywhere Node runs (a Linux NAS, a container, a cloud box).
Every other OmniFocus MCP server automates the local macOS app via AppleScript/JXA. This one speaks the cloud sync protocol instead, which is what lets it run headless.
⚠️ Alpha / use at your own risk. This talks to your real task database. The read and write paths have been validated end-to-end against a live Omni Sync Server account (add + delete transactions round-trip correctly), and the crypto and parsing have an offline test suite — but this hasn't been exercised across every OmniFocus version or edge case. Keep a backup (in OmniFocus: File → Back Up Database), and consider a throwaway account while evaluating. See Safety.
An OmniFocus sync store is a WebDAV collection (OmniFocus.ofocus/) containing:
a baseline transaction and a chain of delta transactions, each a .zip holding a
contents.xml describing object creates/updates/deletes;
.client files registering each device and the transaction "tail" it has synced to;
an encrypted plist holding the wrapped document keys.
This server:
Resolves the shard — sync.omnigroup.com 302-redirects each account to a
syncN.omnigroup.com host; the client follows it.
Authenticates with HTTP Digest (what Omni Sync Server negotiates).
Decrypts using the OmniFileStore format: PBKDF2 derives a wrapping key from your passphrase, RFC 3394 unwraps the document key slots, and each file is AES-128-CTR + HMAC-SHA256 in 64 KiB segments (encrypt-then-MAC).
Replays the transaction chain into an in-memory object model.
Writes by building a new contents.xml, zipping, encrypting, PUT-ting it as a
new transaction descending from the current head tail, and refreshing its .client
registration so other clients treat it as a real participant.
The crypto and format were reimplemented from Omni's own open-source frameworks
(OmniGroup/OmniGroup, notably
OmniFileStore/EncryptionFormat.md and DecryptionExample.py) plus community
reverse-engineering (tomzx/ofocus-format,
rubyfocus). See CREDITS.
Related MCP server: OmniFocus MCP Server
git clone https://github.com/rosskukulinski/omnifocus-sync-mcp.git
cd omnifocus-sync-mcp
npm install
npm run buildSet credentials via environment variables (see .env.example):
Variable | Required | Description |
| yes | Omni Sync Server account name |
| yes | Omni Sync Server account password |
| no | Defaults to the sync password (OmniFocus's default) |
| no | Defaults to |
| no | Defaults to |
| no | Display name for this client's |
| no | Where the stable client id is stored |
| no |
|
A diagnostic CLI exercises the sync path directly:
export OMNIFOCUS_SYNC_USERNAME=... OMNIFOCUS_SYNC_PASSWORD=...
npm run probe -- sync # show database counts
npm run probe -- list flagged # list flagged tasks
npm run probe -- projects # list projects
npm run probe -- add "Buy milk" # add an inbox taskRun over stdio. Example Claude Desktop / Claude Code config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"omnifocus": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/omnifocus-sync-mcp/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"OMNIFOCUS_SYNC_USERNAME": "your-account",
"OMNIFOCUS_SYNC_PASSWORD": "your-password"
}
}
}
}Tool | Description |
| Reload the database from the server; returns counts |
| List tasks ( |
| Full detail for one task by id |
| List projects with folder path and status |
| Create a task (inbox or in a project) |
| Mark a task complete |
| Edit name/note/flag/due/defer; clear dates |
| Delete a task by id |
Back up first, and prefer a test account until you trust the write path.
Start with OMNIFOCUS_READ_ONLY=1 to explore safely.
Writes are append-only transactions; a bad write forks history rather than destroying data, and OmniFocus merges forks on its next sync — but that is a safety net, not a guarantee.
Secrets come from the environment only; nothing is written to this repo. The client
identity file (client.json) contains no secrets.
npm test # offline test suite (crypto round-trips, parse/write, digest)
npm run dev -- ... # run the CLI via tsx without buildingThe offline tests cover the risky parts without a network or a real account: the
OmniFileStore encrypt/decrypt round-trip at every segment boundary, MAC tamper
detection, the passphrase→PBKDF2→key-unwrap pipeline, contents.xml build/parse
round-trips, partial-update merge semantics, and the full zip→encrypt→decrypt→parse
read path.
Built by reimplementing formats documented and open-sourced by others:
OmniGroup/OmniGroup — Omni's own frameworks;
OmniFileStore/EncryptionFormat.md and DecryptionExample.py are the authoritative
encryption spec, and OmniFoundation/XML/OFXMLIdentifier.m the id format.
tomzx/ofocus-format — the .ofocus
transaction/format write-up.
jyruzicka/rubyfocus, kumpelblase2/focus — prior-art parsers.
Not affiliated with or endorsed by The Omni Group. "OmniFocus" is their trademark.
MIT — see LICENSE.
Create a task. Without a project it goes to the inbox. Dates accept ISO 8601 strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | Due date (ISO 8601) | |
| tag | No | Primary tag name or id | |
| name | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| defer | No | Defer/start date (ISO 8601) | |
| flagged | No | ||
| project | No | Project name or id; omit for inbox | |
| estimatedMinutes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that tasks go to the inbox when no project is set and that dates accept ISO 8601. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid project), permission requirements, or what happens on success beyond creation.
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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds a relevant piece of information: the action, the default inbox behavior, and the date format.
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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only basic creation, but not the implications of optional parameters, success/failure behavior, return values, or interactions with sync/other tools. It is inadequate for such a parameter-rich tool.
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 50%, and the description adds only a redundant date format note (already present in schema for due/defer). Parameters like name, note, flagged, and estimatedMinutes lack any explanation in either schema or description, leaving the AI without guidance for those inputs.
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 'Create a task' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit/complete/delete by the 'create' action, and the title confirms the purpose.
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 by stating the action and the inbox behavior when no project is provided, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like of_edit_task or of_delete_task. No exclusionary guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Mark a task complete (optionally at a specific ISO 8601 time).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| when | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional ISO 8601 time but does not explain prerequisites, idempotency, what happens to already completed tasks, or the response. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior and edge cases. It omits what the response looks like, error conditions, and how the optional time affects completion. For a simple mutation tool, it is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It adds ISO 8601 format for the 'when' parameter, which is useful. However, it does not add any meaning for the 'id' parameter beyond its name, which is self-explanatory but not explicitly tied to task identification.
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 states 'Mark a task complete' with an optional time qualifier, using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like of_edit_task or of_delete_task.
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 use for completing tasks but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives like of_edit_task or when not to use this tool, so guidance is merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Permanently delete a task by id (writes an op=delete transaction).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Permanently delete' (irreversibility) and 'op=delete transaction' (write operation). This provides valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not mention error behavior or side effects like cascading.
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 is front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or 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?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (permanence). However, it omits any information about return values, error handling, or task existence checks, and with no output schema or annotations, some of this context would be helpful.
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 must compensate. It merely says 'by id', which restates the parameter name without adding format, type details, or how to obtain the id. This is minimal added value over the schema.
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 'Permanently delete a task by id' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (task), and the mechanism (by id). It also adds a specific implementation detail ('writes an op=delete transaction') that distinguishes this from sibling tools like of_complete_task and of_edit_task.
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 usage context is implied by the tool name and description—this is the tool for permanent deletion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like of_complete_task (which might be used to mark a task done instead of deleting it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Edit fields of a task. Use clearDue/clearDefer to remove a date. Only provided fields change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| due | No | New due date (ISO 8601) | |
| name | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| defer | No | New defer date (ISO 8601) | |
| flagged | No | ||
| clearDue | No | ||
| clearDefer | No | ||
| estimatedMinutes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: partial updates (only provided fields change) and the mechanism to clear dates (clearDue/clearDefer). This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent actionable usage knowledge, though it doesn't describe error handling or return values.
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, no fluff. Provides the core behavior and two specific usage notes, all front-loaded.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential behaviors but lacks information about the return value, potential errors, or the effect on existing fields when not provided. It's a succinct summary but leaves some gaps for a comprehensive understanding.
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 input schema describes only 2 of 9 parameters (due and defer). The description adds semantic context by explaining the clearDue/clearDefer flags and the overall partial-update behavior, but it doesn't elaborate on parameters like flagged, estimatedMinutes, or the meaning of id. Since schema coverage is low, the description only partially compensates.
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 uses the specific verb 'Edit' with the resource 'task' and clarifies that it edits 'fields'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_task, complete_task, and delete_task.
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 provides context that this is for editing existing tasks and explicitly states that only provided fields change, guiding partial-update usage. It also gives a specific instruction for using clearDue/clearDefer to remove dates, though it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a single task by its id, with full detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'with full detail' but does not clarify what that includes, how the task is identified, error behavior, or any permissions needed. This is insufficient for a tool where the safety profile is otherwise undocumented.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every phrase ('single task', 'by its id', 'full detail') adds value, making it both concise and informative for its length.
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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but acceptable. It omits details about return structure, error cases, and relationship to siblings, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations and output schema. It meets the minimum viable bar but has clear gaps.
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 0%, and the description partially compensates by mentioning 'by its id,' clarifying that the sole parameter is the task identifier. However, it does not provide format, source, or validation details for the id, leaving some ambiguity.
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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('a single task'), and the method ('by its id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (multiple) or edit_task (modification). The phrase 'with full detail' adds specificity about the returned data scope.
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: call this when you need a specific task's full details, as opposed to listing tasks or modifying them. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as the task ID being valid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all projects with their folder path and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeDropped | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the output includes folder path and status, but it leaves the meaning of 'all projects' ambiguous—specifically, whether dropped projects are included by default or only when the includeDropped parameter is set. This ambiguity reduces transparency.
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 is concise and front-loaded. It states the verb, resource, and key output details with zero 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, the description covers the core purpose and output. However, the presence of the optional includeDropped parameter introduces an important ambiguity around what 'all projects' means, and the description does not clarify this. There is no output schema, so the description should provide more 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?
The input schema has one boolean parameter (includeDropped) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, therefore it fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. Given the low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.
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 ('List'), the resource ('all projects'), and the output fields ('folder path and status'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like of_list_tasks, which lists tasks instead of projects.
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 intended usage is evident: use this tool to list OmniFocus projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List tasks with optional filtering. filter: remaining (default), available, flagged, inbox, due_soon, all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter to a tag by name | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| filter | No | ||
| search | No | Substring match on name/note | |
| project | No | Filter to a project by name | |
| dueWithinDays | No | Window for the due_soon filter (default 7) | |
| includeCompleted | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that 'remaining' is the default filter, but does not explain return format, ordering, pagination, or the behavior of the includeCompleted parameter. The filter values are already listed in the schema enum, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that.
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 very concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and list filter options compactly. There is no wasted wording, and the default filter is efficiently communicated.
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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the schema covers most parameter meanings. The description adds the default filter but lacks context on filter semantics, parameter interactions, and expected output. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but leaves gaps such as what 'available' means and how includeCompleted behaves.
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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the default filter ('remaining') and enumerating filter values, which the schema does not describe. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'available', 'due_soon', or the includeCompleted parameter, leaving some semantic gaps.
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 'List tasks' with optional filtering, which is a specific verb+resource. It lists the filter options (remaining, available, flagged, inbox, due_soon, all), distinguishing it from sibling tools like of_get_task (single task) and of_list_projects (projects).
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 listing tasks with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternatives nor provides exclusions, such as using of_get_task for a single task. The filter list gives some context, but no direct comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Reload the OmniFocus database from the Omni Sync Server. Returns counts of tasks, projects, and tags.
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and return values but does not warn that reloading may overwrite local changes or require network access. This is a significant gap for a sync operation, as it could have destructive implications.
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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and an output summary. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-param tool, the description is adequate: it clearly states the action and mentions the return values. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects or prerequisites, which would make it fully 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none is needed.
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?
Specific verb 'reload' plus resource 'OmniFocus database from the Omni Sync Server' clearly distinguishes from sibling task/project CRUD tools. It also states the return value (counts of tasks, projects, and tags), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 a sync/refresh operation, making it clear when to use it (to reload from the server). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.
v0.1.0of_add_taskof_complete_taskof_delete_taskof_edit_taskof_get_taskof_list_projectsof_list_tasksof_syncScored across 8 tools
Each tool targets a distinct operation: sync, list/get tasks, list projects, and task CRUD (add, complete, edit, delete). No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
Most tools follow the verb_noun pattern (list_tasks, get_task, add_task, etc.) with a consistent 'of_' prefix. 'of_sync' is a minor deviation, being a single verb without an explicit object, but the pattern is otherwise uniform.
8 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused sync server, covering core task and project operations without over-fragmentation. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the main task lifecycle (create, read, update, complete, delete) and project listing, which is adequate for most workflows. Minor gaps include no project creation/editing or dedicated tag listing, but these are not critical dead ends.
An MCP server that provides read access to your cloud storage providers, bank accounts and more.
Remote MCP server for full read/write access to a Zotero library
Turn outlines and hierarchical notes into interactive mind maps through a hosted remote MCP server.
MCP server for Linear project management and issue tracking
