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 알림
macOS에서 Apple Reminders와 상호작용하기 위한 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다.
특징
목록 관리 : Apple Reminders 앱에서 모든 알림 목록을 확인하세요.
알림 검색 : 특정 목록에서 모든 알림을 가져옵니다.
알림 만들기 : 제목, 마감일, 메모를 포함한 새 알림을 만듭니다.
완료 알림 : 알림을 완료로 표시
알림 삭제 : 목록에서 알림을 제거합니다.
날짜 처리 : 마감일을 위한 ISO 날짜 형식의 적절한 처리
Related MCP server: Apple Reminders MCP Server
구성
Claude Desktop과 함께 사용
claude_desktop_config.json 에 다음을 추가하세요:
지엑스피1
NPX (곧 출시)
{
"mcpServers": {
"apple-reminders": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@modelcontextprotocol/server-apple-reminders"
]
}
}
}API
서버는 Apple Reminders와 상호 작용하기 위한 다음 MCP 도구를 제공합니다.
getLists
모든 알림 목록을 반환합니다.
미리알림 받기
특정 목록에서 알림을 반환합니다.
매개변수:
listName(필수): 알림 목록의 이름
알림 생성
새로운 알림을 만듭니다.
매개변수:
listName(필수): 알림 목록의 이름title(필수): 알림의 제목dueDate(선택 사항): 알림의 마감일(ISO 형식: "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.sssZ")notes(선택 사항): 알림에 대한 메모
완료 알림
알림을 완료된 것으로 표시합니다.
매개변수:
listName(필수): 알림 목록의 이름reminderName(필수): 완료할 알림의 이름
알림 삭제
알림을 삭제합니다.
매개변수:
listName(필수): 알림 목록의 이름reminderName(필수): 삭제할 알림의 이름
작동 원리
이 MCP 서버는 AppleScript를 사용하여 macOS의 Apple 미리 알림 앱과 상호 작용합니다. AI 비서가 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(Model Context Protocol)을 통해 미리 알림을 관리할 수 있는 표준화된 인터페이스를 제공합니다.
개발
이 프로젝트는 TypeScript와 MCP SDK를 사용합니다. 기능을 확장하려면 src/index.ts 의 도구와 src/reminders.ts 의 AppleScript 함수를 수정하세요.
요구 사항
macOS(Apple Reminders 통합에 필요)
노드.js 16+
최소한 하나의 목록으로 구성된 Apple Reminders 앱
특허
MIT
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