AgentTakt
The AgentTakt server lets you submit AI agent task execution plans (as DAGs) for human approval in a terminal-based visual node editor. Key capabilities:
Submit a plan via
request_approvalwith a JSON DAG (nodes and edges) and an optional one-line summary; the call blocks until a human reviews.Humans can interactively edit the plan: move, add, delete nodes, modify parameters, and draw dependency edges.
Server enforces DAG validity (cycle detection) and returns errors so the agent can self-correct before resubmitting.
Returns the human's decision (approved/rejected), the potentially edited plan (which the agent should always use), and an optional rejection reason.

AgentTakt is an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server and TUI tool. When an AI agent (an "Executor" such as Claude Code) sends a task execution plan over MCP, AgentTakt renders it as a node graph in your terminal. You review it with mouse and keyboard — move, add, and delete nodes, draw dependency edges, edit parameters — then approve, and the edited plan JSON is returned to the Executor for execution.
Claude Code (Executor)
│ stdio (MCP) your other terminal
▼ │
[agenttakt serve] ── Unix domain socket ──▶ [agenttakt (TUI)]
MCP server review / edit / approveFeatures
Terminal-native — no web UI; everything runs inside your terminal
Visual node editor — rounded nodes, dependency edges, and per-type coloring, powered by Textual
Mouse-first editing — drag nodes to move them, draw edges between ports (rubber band), click to select and delete
Safe approval loop — cycle detection (DAG guarantee) and other validations at the entry point, returning errors the agent can self-correct
Related MCP server: textual-mcp-server
Requirements
Python 3.10+ (recommended: uv)
A terminal emulator with mouse reporting (iTerm2, WezTerm, kitty, Ghostty, ...)
Installation
If you have uv, no installation is needed. uvx agenttakt fetches and runs AgentTakt on demand, and the .mcp.json example below starts the MCP server the same way.
If you don't have uv, install AgentTakt once:
brew install ryoohshima/tap/agenttakt # Homebrew
pipx install agenttakt # pipxInstalling is also handy for everyday use even with uv — you start the TUI by hand, so plain agenttakt beats typing uvx agenttakt each time:
uv tool install agenttaktQuick Start
AgentTakt runs as two processes: the MCP server, which Claude Code starts for you, and the TUI, which you start yourself in a separate terminal. The TUI is what displays the plan, so start it before asking the Executor for approval.
┌─ Terminal A: you ───────────────────┐ ┌─ Terminal B: Claude Code ───────────┐
│ $ uvx agenttakt │ │ $ claude │
│ │ │ │
│ ╭─ grep ───╮ │ │ > Plan the refactor, then ask │
│ │ pattern │───╮ │ │ me to approve it │
│ ╰──────────╯ │ │ │ │
│ ╭────▼─────╮ │ │ calls request_approval(plan) │
│ │ edit │ │ │ waiting for approval... │
│ ╰──────────╯ │ │ (blocked until you decide) │
│ │ │ │
│ [a] Approve [r] Reject │ │ │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────┘
▲ │
╰──────────────── Unix domain socket ────────────────╯Running the TUI in the same session as Claude Code does not work. A stdio MCP server has its standard input and output reserved for protocol traffic, so the same process cannot also drive a full-screen terminal UI. That is why the two halves are separate processes talking over a Unix domain socket.
1. Start the TUI (in its own terminal)
uvx agenttakt # if installed: agenttakt (short alias: agt)An idle screen appears, waiting for plans from the Executor. Leave this terminal open. If no TUI is running when the Executor calls request_approval, the call fails with:
AgentTakt editor is not running. Ask the user to run "agenttakt" in a separate terminal, then call request_approval again.
On startup the TUI checks PyPI in the background and shows a notification when a newer version is available. Set AGENTTAKT_NO_UPDATE_CHECK=1 to disable the check.
2. Register the MCP server with the Executor (Claude Code)
Add the following to your project's .mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"agenttakt": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["agenttakt", "serve"],
"timeout": 1800000
}
}
}Setting timeout (milliseconds) explicitly is required. The request_approval tool blocks until the human finishes reviewing. MCP progress notifications do not extend client-side timeouts, so the default would cut the request off before approval. The example above sets 30 minutes (1800000). This does not apply to show_plan, which returns as soon as the TUI receives the plan.
3. Request approval from the Executor
When the Executor calls the MCP tool request_approval(plan, summary), the plan appears in the TUI as a node graph. Once the human edits and approves (or rejects) it, the result is returned as:
{ "status": "approved", "plan": { "...edited plan..." }, "reason": null }See docs/schema.md for the plan JSON format and what to write in each node.
Display-only plans (show_plan)
show_plan(plan, summary) shows a plan in the TUI without waiting for approval — it returns {"status": "displayed"} as soon as the editor receives it. Use it when you just want visibility into what the agent is planning, in any mode (not only plan mode). The plan opens with a [view-only] header; closing it sends nothing back to the Executor.
Agents call request_approval naturally when the host is in plan mode, but they will not volunteer plans outside it. To encourage that, add an instruction like this to your project's CLAUDE.md (or equivalent agent instructions):
## AgentTakt
Whenever you formulate a multi-step plan — in any mode, not just plan mode —
submit it with the AgentTakt `show_plan` tool so the human can see it as a
node graph. Use `request_approval` instead when you need the human's approval
before executing.Note: a [view-only] plan occupies the editor until dismissed; a later request_approval waits in the queue behind it.
Debug mode (try it without MCP)
uvx agenttakt open examples/sample_plan.json --out edited.jsonLoads a plan from a file, opens the editor, and writes the approval result to --out.
Key Bindings
Key | Action |
| Approve the plan (confirmation dialog) |
| Reject the plan (with a reason) |
| Add a node |
| Delete the selected node/edge |
| Undo / Redo |
Arrow keys | Move the selected node by one cell (fine-tuning) |
| Clear selection |
| Toggle the parameter panel |
| Help (controls and how to write |
| Quit |
Mouse: drag a node to move it; drag from a node's output port (●, right edge) and release on another node to create an edge.
Edges are drawn as braille Bezier-like curves by default. If they render poorly in your environment, switch to rounded orthogonal lines with --edges orthogonal.
Documentation
Plan JSON schema — data model, node fields, what to write in
type/data, and validation rulesChangelog — release notes for each version
License
Available Tools
1 toolrequest_approvalA
Submit a task execution plan for human review in the AgentTakt editor.
Blocks until the human approves or rejects the plan in the TUI. Returns {"status": "approved" | "rejected", "plan": , "reason": <str | null>}. The returned plan may differ from the submitted one (the human can edit nodes, edges and parameters) — always execute the returned plan.
Args: plan: Plan JSON with graph_id, nodes[] and edges[] (must be a DAG). summary: One-line description shown in the editor header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| summary | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the exact return format, the possibility of the plan being edited, and the critical instruction to execute the returned plan. This goes beyond the schema and provides essential behavioral insights.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavior, return value, and parameter explanations. Every sentence provides value, with no tautology or fluff. The formatting with paragraphs and an Args list enhances readability without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, blocking behavior, return format, and parameter semantics, which is comprehensive for a two-parameter tool. It lacks explicit error scenarios or timeout handling, but the output schema (as described in the return format) and parameter hints are sufficient for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does. It explains 'plan' as 'Plan JSON with graph_id, nodes[] and edges[] (must be a DAG)' and 'summary' as 'One-line description shown in the editor header'. This adds meaning, though the inner structure of nodes/edges is not detailed, leaving some room for improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 ('Submit') and resource ('a task execution plan for human review in the AgentTakt editor'). It unambiguously identifies what the tool does, making its function distinct even in the absence of sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by noting that the tool blocks until human approval/rejection and instructs to 'always execute the returned plan'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given no sibling tools, this is acceptable and gives practical usage direction.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
v0.1.0- First observed
request_approval
TDQS
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool has a clear, single purpose.
With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied. The name 'request_approval' clearly follows a verb_noun pattern and is unambiguous.
A single tool is too few for a server that might reasonably support additional operations such as querying approval status or managing plans. The minimal surface feels thin for a general-purpose agent toolkit.
The tool covers the full submit-and-wait-for-approval lifecycle, but there are minor gaps like cancellation or historical querying. For its stated purpose, the core workflow is complete.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
- DazbenchOAuthapp.dazbench
Task management your AI agents can actually run. One line becomes a context-ready task over MCP.
Official MCP server for Agentwork — delegate tasks to AI agents with human-in-the-loop
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
MCP server for AI agents to plan, verify, and deploy Cloudflare-native apps.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server enabling AI agents to interact with terminal applications through structured Terminal State Tree representation. Works with any AI assistant that supports the Model Context Protocol.8619MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets AI agents launch, interact with, and inspect Textual TUI applications headlessly.124MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that lets AI agents see and interact with terminal/CLI applications through virtual terminals and PNG screenshots.153MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceLocal + remote terminal interaction control MCP Server. Lets AI agents control interactive TUI programs the way a human would.2913MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/ryoohshima/AgentTakt'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server