Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
recursechat

Apple Shortcuts Server

by recursechat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Apple 단축키 MCP 서버 🤖

Claude와 같은 AI 비서가 Apple Shortcuts 자동화를 제어할 수 있도록 하는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다. 이를 통해 AI 모델은 macOS에서 안전하고 제어된 방식으로 단축키를 트리거하고 작업을 자동화할 수 있습니다.

MCP란 무엇인가요? 🤔

모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP)은 Claude Desktop과 같은 AI 앱이 외부 도구 및 데이터 소스에 연결할 수 있도록 하는 시스템입니다. AI 어시스턴트가 사용자의 제어권을 유지하면서 로컬 서비스 및 API를 사용할 수 있는 명확하고 안전한 방법을 제공합니다.

Related MCP server: mcp-netbird

이 서버는 무슨 역할을 하나요? 🚀

Apple Shortcuts MCP 서버:

  • AI 어시스턴트가 사용 가능한 단축키를 나열할 수 있도록 합니다.

  • 선택적 입력 매개변수를 사용하여 이름으로 바로가기를 실행할 수 있습니다.

  • 자동화 제어를 위한 간단한 인터페이스를 제공합니다

필수 조건 📋

시작하기 전에 다음 사항을 확인하세요.

Apple Shortcuts Server를 사용하기 위한 구성 ⚙️

Apple 단축키 서버를 사용하기 위한 Claude Desktop 구성은 다음과 같습니다.

지엑스피1

Apple Shortcuts 서버를 빌드하고 로컬에서 실행하세요 🛠️

  1. 이 저장소를 복제하세요:

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

  1. 종속성 설치:

npm install

  1. 프로젝트 빌드

npm run build

로컬 빌드에서 Apple Shortcuts 서버를 사용하기 위한 Claude Desktop 구성은 다음과 같습니다.

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

사용법 🎯

클로드에게 "단축키 나열"을 요청하거나, 단축키 이름을 사용해 특정 단축키를 실행할 수 있습니다. 예를 들어, "오늘의 단어 가져오기" 또는 "노래 재생"이라고 할 수 있습니다.

라이센스 ⚖️

아파치-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