Apple MCP

by jxnl

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool corresponds to a distinct Apple app (Calendar, Contacts, Mail, Maps, Messages, Notes, Reminders) with clearly separated purposes. There is no overlap in functionality, as each tool handles a specific domain like events, contacts, emails, locations, messages, notes, or reminders, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names are singular nouns (calendar, contacts, mail, maps, messages, notes, reminders) that directly reference the Apple apps they interact with. This consistent naming pattern is simple, predictable, and enhances readability across the tool set.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with Apple's core productivity apps. Each tool earns its place by covering a major app, avoiding bloat while providing comprehensive coverage across common user workflows like communication, organization, and navigation.
Completeness4/5
The tool set offers strong coverage for basic CRUD operations across key Apple apps, such as searching, creating, and retrieving items. Minor gaps exist, like no explicit update or delete operations in some tools (e.g., notes, reminders), but agents can likely work around this using create and search functions for most use cases.
Average 2.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the four operations, it doesn't describe what each operation actually does (e.g., 'open' might open the Calendar app, 'list' might retrieve events), nor does it mention permissions needed, whether operations are read-only or mutating, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a multi-operation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 4 distinct operations) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what each operation does, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. For a multi-operation tool with no structured metadata beyond the input schema, the description should provide more operational context.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and required/optional status. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search, create, and open calendar events in Apple Calendar app' - a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like contacts, mail, maps, etc. by focusing on calendar events. However, it doesn't differentiate between the four operations (search, open, list, create) within the tool itself, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 or when to use specific operations within the tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other calendar-related tools that might exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the parameter descriptions in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Search and retrieve' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search and retrieve contacts') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function in a compact form.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., what data is returned, format, or pagination), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like safety or constraints, making it inadequate for a search tool with no structured output documentation.
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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single optional parameter 'name'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra details like search syntax or examples.
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 clearly states the action ('Search and retrieve') and resource ('contacts from Apple Contacts app'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'calendar' or 'mail' in terms of domain specificity beyond mentioning 'Apple Contacts app'.
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 like 'mail' or 'messages', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for contact-related searches but lacks explicit context or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions three operations but omits three others listed in the schema (mailboxes, accounts, latest). It doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens when operations fail. For a multi-operation tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing all operations.
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 complex tool with 10 parameters, 6 operations, and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits three operations entirely and provides no behavioral context about authentication, side effects, or error handling. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.
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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing three main operations, but doesn't explain parameter dependencies or operational semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have better explained how operations relate to parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as interacting with Apple Mail app with specific operations (read unread emails, search emails, send emails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like calendar or contacts by focusing on email functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential email-related tools that might exist elsewhere.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts for different operations, or when other tools might be more suitable. The agent must infer usage solely from the operation names and parameter descriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like 'save favorites' and 'get directions' which imply mutation and read operations, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, data persistence, or response formats. For a multi-operation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 efficiently structured as a single sentence listing key capabilities. It's appropriately sized for a multi-function tool, though it could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the primary 'operation' parameter requirement. Every phrase earns its place by describing distinct functionality.
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 complex tool with 9 parameters, 7 distinct operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain how operations differ, what data is returned, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without trial and error.
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%, providing good documentation for all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that operations like 'search locations' correspond to the 'search' operation parameter. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond what's already in the structured schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (search, manage, save, get) and resources (locations, guides, favorites, directions) using Apple Maps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calendar or contacts by focusing on mapping functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential mapping alternatives within the same domain.
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 or when not to use it. It lists capabilities but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with other tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the operation list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions operations like 'send' and 'schedule', implying mutations, but doesn't state permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'check unread messages' entails (e.g., returns count or list). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
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 concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence to list key operations. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating operations or adding brief context, but it avoids waste and is efficiently phrased.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple operations including mutations) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or operational constraints. For a multi-operation tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
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 schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond listing operations, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'phoneNumber' is required for specific operations beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Interact with Apple Messages app - send, read, schedule messages and check unread messages.' It specifies the verb ('interact with') and resource ('Apple Messages app'), listing four distinct operations. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'contacts' or 'mail' beyond mentioning the specific app, which is good but not fully distinguishing.
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. It lists operations but doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'send' requires specific permissions or if 'read' is for recent messages only. With sibling tools like 'mail' and 'contacts', no differentiation is offered, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions operations but doesn't describe what happens during each (e.g., search returns matching notes, list returns all notes, create adds a new note). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether operations are read-only or mutative (create implies mutation). The description is too vague for a tool with multiple operations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words but could be more structured by separating operations or adding brief context. Given the tool's multi-operation nature, a bit more detail might improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple operations (search, list, create), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to add necessary context for safe and effective use, especially given the mutative 'create' operation.
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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters and their purposes. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search behavior, list scope, or create defaults). Baseline is 3 since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search, retrieve and create') and resource ('notes in Apple Notes app'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar or contacts by specifying the Apple Notes domain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate 'retrieve' from 'list' operations or mention that 'retrieve' might refer to listing notes.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Apple Notes app availability), when to choose search vs. list operations, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like reminders or messages for note-taking tasks. Usage is implied through the operation parameter but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the operations (search, create, open) but fails to disclose critical traits like required permissions (e.g., app access), side effects (e.g., data persistence), rate limits, or error handling. For a multi-operation tool with potential mutations, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('search, create, and open reminders') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's scope, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple operations including mutations) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining inter-parameter dependencies or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search, create, and open') and resource ('reminders in Apple Reminders app'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'calendar' or 'notes', which might also manage time-based or task-related data, missing full differentiation.
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, such as its sibling tools (e.g., 'calendar' for events, 'notes' for general notes). It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![apple-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jxnl/apple-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jxnl/apple-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![apple-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jxnl/apple-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jxnl/apple-mcp)

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/jxnl/apple-mcp'

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