Skip to main content
Glama
marissamarym

iMessage MCP Server

by marissamarym
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one searches contacts and the other sends messages. There is no overlap in functionality, making it impossible to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_contacts, send_imessage) with clear, descriptive names that align with their actions. No deviations or mixed conventions are present.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for an iMessage domain, lacking essential operations like reading messages, managing conversations, or handling attachments. The count is too low for comprehensive coverage.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for an iMessage server. It misses core functionalities such as retrieving messages, listing conversations, replying to threads, or deleting messages, leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), error handling, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but fails to address behavioral aspects like result format, error conditions, or usage context. For a search tool with no structured behavioral data, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can invoke it correctly.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'query' documented as 'Search query'. The description adds value by specifying what the query searches ('by name, phone, or email'), which provides context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail syntax, examples, or constraints, so it meets the baseline for 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 with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('contacts'), and specifies the searchable fields (name, phone, or email). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'send_imessage', which appears unrelated but context isn't provided for comparison.

    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 in what context. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where it's preferred over other methods.

    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. While 'Send an iMessage' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the recipient isn't in the user's contacts. It mentions 'using Messages app' which provides some implementation context, but lacks operational details.

    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 extremely concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses straightforward language. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while understanding the essential purpose.

    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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (success/failure indicators, return values), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no error handling context. While the purpose is clear, the operational context needed for reliable tool invocation is missing.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('recipient' and 'message') clearly documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_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 action ('Send') and resource ('an iMessage using Messages app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_contacts', but that's reasonable since they perform completely different functions. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

    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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like having the Messages app installed or configured), limitations (message length, supported recipients), or comparison with other messaging methods. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

    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

imessage-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

imessage-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/marissamarym/imessage-mcp-server'

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