A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceA macOS-only MCP server that exposes Apple Reminders to AI clients, enabling create, read, update, delete, search, and organization of reminders and lists through natural language.
2
MIT
MCP Apple Reminders
by shadowfax92
MCP Appleリマインダー
macOS 上の Apple リマインダーと対話するためのモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー。
特徴
リスト管理: Appleのリマインダーアプリですべてのリマインダーリストを表示
リマインダーの取得: 特定のリストからすべてのリマインダーを取得します
リマインダーの作成: タイトル、期限、メモを付けて新しいリマインダーを作成します
リマインダーを完了: リマインダーを完了としてマークする
リマインダーを削除: リストからリマインダーを削除します
日付処理: 期日の ISO 日付形式を適切に処理する
Related MCP server: Apple Reminders MCP Server
構成
Claude Desktopでの使用
これをclaude_desktop_config.jsonに追加します:
{
"mcpServers": {
"apple-reminders": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/mcp-apple-reminders/dist/index.js"
]
}
}
}NPX（近日公開）
{
"mcpServers": {
"apple-reminders": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@modelcontextprotocol/server-apple-reminders"
]
}
}
}API
サーバーは、Apple リマインダーと対話するための次の MCP ツールを公開します。
リストを取得する
すべてのリマインダー リストを返します。
リマインダーを取得する
特定のリストからリマインダーを返します。
パラメータ:
listName(必須): リマインダーリストの名前
リマインダーを作成する
新しいリマインダーを作成します。
パラメータ:
listName(必須): リマインダーリストの名前title（必須）: リマインダーのタイトルdueDate(オプション): リマインダーの期限 (ISO 形式: "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.sssZ")notes（オプション）: リマインダーのメモ
完了リマインダー
リマインダーを完了としてマークします。
パラメータ:
listName(必須): リマインダーリストの名前reminderName（必須）: 完了するリマインダーの名前
リマインダーを削除する
リマインダーを削除します。
パラメータ:
listName(必須): リマインダーリストの名前reminderName(必須): 削除するリマインダーの名前
仕組み
このMCPサーバーは、AppleScriptを使用してmacOS上のAppleリマインダーアプリと連携します。AIアシスタントがモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）を介してリマインダーを管理するための標準化されたインターフェースを提供します。
発達
このプロジェクトはTypeScriptとMCP SDKを使用しています。機能を拡張するには、 src/index.ts内のツールとsrc/reminders.ts内のAppleScript関数を変更してください。
要件
macOS（Appleリマインダーの統合に必要）
Node.js 16以上
少なくとも1つのリストが設定されたAppleリマインダーアプリ
ライセンス
マサチューセッツ工科大学
Available Tools
5 toolscompleteReminderD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listName | Yes | ||
| reminderName | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
createReminderD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listName | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| notes | No |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
deleteReminderD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listName | Yes | ||
| reminderName | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getListsD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getRemindersD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listName | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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 tool update
v1.0.0- Changed
getLists1 field changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false
5 tool updates
- First observed
completeReminder - First observed
createReminder - First observed
deleteReminder - First observed
getLists - First observed
getReminders
TDQS
C2/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: completeReminder, createReminder, and deleteReminder handle different lifecycle actions on reminders, while getLists and getReminders are distinct read operations for lists and reminders respectively. The naming makes it immediately clear what each tool does without ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with camelCase styling: completeReminder, createReminder, deleteReminder, getLists, getReminders. The naming is perfectly predictable and follows the same convention throughout the entire set.
Tool Count4/5
Five tools is a reasonable number for a reminders server, covering core CRUD operations and list management. It's slightly lean but appropriate for the domain, though an updateReminder tool would make it more complete. The count is well-scoped without being excessive.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers create, read (getReminders), and delete operations for reminders, plus list management (getLists) and completion (completeReminder). However, there's a notable gap: no updateReminder tool to modify existing reminders, which is a common operation in reminder systems. This missing functionality could cause agent workarounds.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP connector for Apple Reminders — search, create, complete, and edit via your own Mac.
- mcpOAuthnet.todoist
Official Todoist MCP server for AI assistants to manage tasks, projects, and workflows.
The Telnyx MCP server is an official implementation of the Model Context Protocol that enables AI clients (like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and OpenAI Agents) to interact with Telnyx's telephony, messaging, and AI assistant APIs. It provides comprehensive capabilities including making and managing phone calls, sending SMS/MMS messages, purchasing and configuring phone numbers, creating AI assistants with custom instructions, managing cloud storage buckets, scraping and embedding website content, and handling integration secrets. The server exists as both a local implementation and a remotely hosted version, allowing developers to integrate real-world communication infrastructure directly into AI applications.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server enabling AI assistants to create, read, list, and delete Apple Reminders on macOS via AppleScript.11Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server providing comprehensive integration with Apple Reminders, enabling CRUD operations, natural language date parsing, advanced search, and list management.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that integrates Apple Reminders with Claude Desktop, enabling comprehensive task management and reminders directly through conversations with Claude.99 npm4MIT