Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
recursechat

Apple Shortcuts Server

by recursechat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Apple ショートカット MCP サーバー 🤖

ClaudeのようなAIアシスタントがAppleショートカットの自動化を制御できるようにするモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー。これにより、AIモデルはmacOS上でショートカットをトリガーし、タスクを安全かつ制御された方法で自動化できるようになります。

MCPとは何ですか？🤔

モデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）は、Claude DesktopのようなAIアプリが外部ツールやデータソースに接続できるようにするシステムです。これにより、AIアシスタントがユーザーの制御を維持しながら、ローカルサービスやAPIを明確かつ安全に操作できるようになります。

Related MCP server: mcp-netbird

このサーバーは何をしますか？🚀

Apple ショートカット MCP サーバー:

  • AIアシスタントが利用可能なショートカットを一覧表示できるようにする

  • オプションの入力パラメータを使用して、名前でショートカットを実行できます。

  • 自動化制御のためのシンプルなインターフェースを提供します

前提条件 📋

始める前に、次のものを用意してください。

Apple ショートカット サーバーを使用するための設定 ⚙️

Apple ショートカット サーバーを使用するための Claude Desktop の構成は次のとおりです。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "apple-shortcuts": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "mcp-server-apple-shortcuts"]
    }
  }
}

Apple ショートカット サーバーを構築してローカルで実行する 🛠️

  1. このリポジトリをクローンします:

git clone git@github.com:recursechat/mcp-server-apple-shortcuts.git

  1. 依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

  1. ビルドプロジェクト

npm run build

ローカル ビルドで Apple ショートカット サーバーを使用するための Claude Desktop の構成は次のとおりです。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "apple-shortcuts": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["/path/to/mcp-server-apple-shortcuts/build/index.js"],
    }
  }
}

使用方法 🎯

Claude に「ショートカットを一覧表示する」ように依頼したり、ショートカット名を使用して特定のショートカット（「今日の単語を取得する」や「曲を再生する」など）を実行したりできます。

ライセンス ⚖️

Apache 2.0

Available Tools

2 tools
list_shortcutsB

List all available shortcuts

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 only states the basic function without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether the list is paginated, sorted, filtered, or if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context about the return format (e.g., what data is included in the list), behavioral details, or usage guidelines. While the tool is straightforward, the description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand its operation without annotations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool. No additional value is needed or provided beyond the 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 action ('List') and resource ('all available shortcuts'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'run_shortcut' beyond the obvious difference between listing and executing, 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with the sibling 'run_shortcut' tool. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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

run_shortcutC

Run a Shortcuts automation by name

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the shortcut to run
inputNoOptional input to pass to the shortcut

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 states the tool runs a shortcut but doesn't explain what that entails—whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, if it requires permissions, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its 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?

Given the complexity of executing automations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid shortcut names or input formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the 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 action ('Run') and resource ('Shortcuts automation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_shortcuts' beyond the basic verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify this tool executes while the sibling enumerates.

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 or any prerequisites. The description lacks context about dependencies, such as needing to know shortcut names from 'list_shortcuts' or handling errors if a shortcut doesn't exist.

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.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedlist_shortcuts
    • First observedrun_shortcut
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available shortcuts, while the other executes a specific shortcut by name. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (list_shortcuts, run_shortcut), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.

Tool Count2/5

With only two tools, the server feels thin for its apparent domain of managing and running Apple Shortcuts. While the tools cover basic listing and execution, the scope suggests potential gaps, such as creating, editing, or deleting shortcuts, making the count seem insufficient for comprehensive automation workflows.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a shortcuts management server. It lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting shortcuts, which are core to lifecycle management. This will likely cause agent failures when tasks require modification or setup of shortcuts beyond just listing and running existing ones.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches