OmniFocus-MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between 'remove_item' and 'batch_remove_items', and 'edit_item' could be confused with individual add/edit operations. The descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries between single and batch operations are not perfectly clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structure (e.g., add_omnifocus_task, edit_item, dump_database). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing tasks and projects in OmniFocus. Each tool serves a clear purpose, from basic CRUD operations to batch processing and database inspection, without feeling excessive or insufficient.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for the OmniFocus domain, including create (add_task, add_project), read (dump_database), update (edit_item), and delete (remove_item, batch_remove_items) operations, plus batch additions. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 14 of 15 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 36 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 11, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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. While 'Add a new task' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
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?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after task creation, what the return value might be, or provide any behavioral context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 ('Add') and resource ('new task to OmniFocus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_project' or 'edit_item', which would require mentioning this is specifically for tasks rather than projects or editing existing items.
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 like 'add_project', 'edit_item', or 'batch_add_items'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any exclusions that would help an agent choose between these sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, permission requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid project, how the system responds, error conditions, or relationships with sibling tools. The agent would need to infer too much from the minimal description alone.
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 schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Add a new project') and the target resource ('to OmniFocus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'add_omnifocus_task', which creates ambiguity about when to use one versus the other for project-related operations.
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 like 'add_omnifocus_task' or 'batch_add_items'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets the current state,' implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a safe, non-destructive action, what permissions are required, or the format/scope of the returned data. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
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 (a database dump tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), usage context, and output format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for the agent to invoke this tool correctly is insufficient, especially compared to sibling mutation tools.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for both parameters ('hideCompleted' and 'hideRecurringDuplicates'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context, such as explaining why these filters are useful or their impact on the output.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('current state of your OmniFocus database'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'batch_add_items' or 'edit_item'), which would require a 5. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name 'dump_database'.
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various mutation operations (e.g., 'add_omnifocus_task', 'remove_item'), the agent must infer that this is a read-only tool for data retrieval, but this is not explicitly stated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states 'Edit' which implies mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if ID not found), or response format. For a complex 16-parameter mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place: 'Edit' (action), 'a task or project' (targets), 'in OmniFocus' (context). No redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 high complexity (16 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a powerful edit tool with many parameters, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 16 parameters with clear descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'replaceTags' relates to 'addTags/removeTags') or provide usage examples.
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 verb ('Edit') and resource ('a task or project in OmniFocus'), providing specific action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_omnifocus_task' and 'remove_item' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'batch_add_items' might also involve modifications).
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing item), exclusions (e.g., when batch operations might be better), or comparisons to siblings like 'batch_add_items' for multiple edits. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes items but doesn't clarify whether this is permanent deletion, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, whether changes are reversible, what confirmation is provided, or how this differs from sibling tools. Given the complexity of a removal operation, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - no explanation of the ID/name fallback relationship, no context about where to find IDs, or how itemType affects the operation.
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 ('Remove') and target resource ('a task or project from OmniFocus'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'batch_remove_items' which likely performs similar bulk operations, missing explicit differentiation.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_remove_items' for multiple items or 'edit_item' for modifications instead of removal. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a batch addition operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or returns any output. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 front-loads key information ('Add multiple tasks or projects') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clarifying the batch nature and target system, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational transparency.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying batch processing, which is already covered by the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Add multiple tasks or projects') and target ('to OmniFocus in a single operation'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from single-item tools like 'add_omnifocus_task' and 'add_project' by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly name these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding multiple items at once, suggesting it's an alternative to single-item tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over siblings like 'add_omnifocus_task' or 'add_project', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving guidance incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a removal operation. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether removal is permanent/reversible, permissions required, rate limits, error behavior for partial failures, or what happens to dependent items. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a destructive operation.
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 purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand immediately.
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?
For a destructive batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'remove' means (delete, archive, etc.), return values, error handling, or important constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more completeness is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch removal, which is already clear from the name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
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 verb ('remove') and resource ('multiple tasks or projects from OmniFocus'), specifying it's a batch operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_item' by emphasizing 'multiple... in a single operation', but doesn't explicitly name that sibling for full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when removing multiple items at once versus single items, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'remove_item' or other alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites, error handling, or specific scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![OmniFocus-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/themotionmachine/OmniFocus-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/themotionmachine/OmniFocus-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![OmniFocus-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/themotionmachine/OmniFocus-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/themotionmachine/OmniFocus-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/themotionmachine/OmniFocus-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server