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 苹果提醒事项
用于与 macOS 上的 Apple Reminders 交互的模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器。
特征
列表管理：查看 Apple 提醒事项应用中的所有提醒事项列表
提醒检索：从特定列表中获取所有提醒
创建提醒：创建带有标题、截止日期和注释的新提醒
完成提醒：将提醒标记为已完成
删除提醒：从列表中删除提醒
日期处理：正确处理到期日的 ISO 日期格式
Related MCP server: Apple Reminders MCP Server
配置
与 Claude Desktop 一起使用
将其添加到您的claude_desktop_config.json中：
{
"mcpServers": {
"apple-reminders": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/mcp-apple-reminders/dist/index.js"
]
}
}
}NPX（即将推出）
{
"mcpServers": {
"apple-reminders": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@modelcontextprotocol/server-apple-reminders"
]
}
}
}API
服务器公开了以下 MCP 工具用于与 Apple 提醒事项进行交互：
获取列表
返回所有提醒列表。
获取提醒
从特定列表返回提醒。
参数：
listName（必填）：提醒列表的名称
创建提醒
创建新的提醒。
参数：
listName（必填）：提醒列表的名称title（必填）：提醒的标题dueDate（可选）：提醒的截止日期（ISO 格式：“YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.sssZ”）notes（可选）：提醒的注释
完成提醒
将提醒标记为已完成。
参数：
listName（必填）：提醒列表的名称reminderName（必填）：需要完成的提醒的名称
删除提醒
删除提醒。
参数：
listName（必填）：提醒列表的名称reminderName（必填）：要删除的提醒的名称
工作原理
该 MCP 服务器使用 AppleScript 与 macOS 上的 Apple 提醒事项应用进行交互。它通过模型上下文协议 (MCP) 为 AI 助手管理提醒事项提供了标准化接口。
发展
该项目使用 TypeScript 和 MCP SDK。如需扩展功能，请修改src/index.ts中的工具以及src/reminders.ts中的 AppleScript 函数。
要求
macOS（Apple Reminders 集成所需）
Node.js 16+
Apple 提醒事项应用至少配置了一个列表
执照
麻省理工学院
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