Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ActivitySmith MCP Server show me my recent activities"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
This MCP server exposes ActivitySmith notifications and live activity tools.
Example mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"activitysmith": {
"command": "uv",
"args": ["run", "mcp-activitysmith"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "your_key_here"
}
}
}
}Example mcp.json with input prompt (VS Code):
{
"inputs": [
{
"id": "activitysmithApiKey",
"type": "promptString",
"description": "ActivitySmith API key",
"password": true
}
],
"mcpServers": {
"activitysmith": {
"command": "uv",
"args": ["run", "mcp-activitysmith"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "${input:activitysmithApiKey}"
}
}
}
}Example mcp.json using Docker (stdio, latest image):
{
"mcpServers": {
"activitysmith": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"--rm",
"-i",
"-e",
"API_KEY=your_key_here",
"ghcr.io/stumpyfr/mcp-activitysmith:latest"
]
}
}
}Example mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"activitysmith": {
"url": "http://127.0.0.1:8000",
"headers": {
"Authorization": "Bearer your_key_here"
}
}
}
}Example mcp.json with input prompt (VS Code):
{
"inputs": [
{
"id": "activitysmithApiKey",
"type": "promptString",
"description": "ActivitySmith API key",
"password": true
}
],
"mcpServers": {
"activitysmith": {
"url": "http://127.0.0.1:8000",
"headers": {
"Authorization": "Bearer ${input:activitysmithApiKey}"
}
}
}
}Python 3.12+
ActivitySmith API key
uv syncIf you change the package name or entry point, rerun uv sync to refresh the script.
API_KEY=your_key_here uv run mcp-activitysmithuv run mcp-activitysmith --serverHTTP mode reads the API key from the Authorization header on each request.
Stdio mode reads the API key from the API_KEY environment variable.
End an activity with a title and message
Args: activity_id (str): The ID of the activity to end title (str): The title to show when the activity ends subtitle (str): The subtitle to show when the activity ends current_step (int): The current step to show when the activity ends auto_dismiss_minutes (int, optional): The number of minutes after which the activity will be automatically dismissed. Defaults to 2. color (str, optional): The color to show when the activity ends. Defaults to "blue". current_step_color (str, optional): The color of the current step to show when the activity ends. Defaults to "blue".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | blue | |
| title | Yes | ||
| subtitle | Yes | ||
| activity_id | Yes | ||
| current_step | Yes | ||
| current_step_color | No | blue | |
| auto_dismiss_minutes | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether ending is irreversible), permissions required, rate limits, or what happens to the activity afterwards. The description only states the action and lists parameters.
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 structured as a docstring with parameter list, which is clear but somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'to show when the activity ends' appears multiple times). It could be more concise by grouping or removing redundancy.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers parameter semantics but lacks details on return value, error handling, or lifecycle context. It is minimally complete for a simple mutative action.
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?
The description adds meaning to each parameter beyond the schema's property names, including brief explanations like 'The ID of the activity to end' and default values. With 0% schema description coverage, this is essential and well-handled, though some descriptions are slightly tautological.
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 action: 'End an activity with a title and message.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_activity and update_activity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_activity or send_notifications. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send a notification with a title and message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic action but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as recipients, side effects, or permissions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 very short, which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool. It lacks necessary detail, so it is not optimally concise—it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 string params), but with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose beyond the basics, ignoring important context like notification delivery mechanism or result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description merely repeats the parameter names without adding meaning, constraints, or examples. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 action (send) and resource (notification) and mentions the key inputs (title and message). It is specific and unambiguous, although it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings (which are activity-related, so differentiation is inherent).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when not to use it, preconditions, or alternatives. The description offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start an activity with a title and message
Args: title (str): The title to show when the activity starts subtitle (str): The subtitle to show when the activity starts current_step (int): The current step to show when the activity starts number_of_step (int): The total number of steps to show when the activity starts color (str, optional): The color to show when the activity starts. Defaults to "blue". current_step_color (str, optional): The color of the current step to show when the activity starts. Defaults to "blue".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | blue | |
| title | Yes | ||
| subtitle | Yes | ||
| current_step | Yes | ||
| number_of_step | Yes | ||
| current_step_color | No | blue |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only describes the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or behavior (e.g., whether it triggers notifications, other side effects).
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 structured as a docstring with a clear first sentence and parameter list. While somewhat verbose by repeating schema info, it is necessary because the schema lacks descriptions.
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?
All parameters are explained, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (output schema exists but not described) or behavioral context like whether it's blocking or part of a workflow.
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?
The description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'title to show when the activity starts'), which is lacking in the input schema (0% coverage). It also notes defaults and optionality.
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 verb 'Start' and the resource 'an activity', and it distinguishes from sibling tools (end_activity, update_activity, send_notifications) by implying this is for initiating, not ending or updating.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context for its invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update an activity with a title and message
Args: activity_id (str): The ID of the activity to update title (str): The title to show when the activity is updated subtitle (str): The subtitle to show when the activity is updated current_step (int): The current step to show when the activity is updated color (str, optional): The color to show when the activity ends. Defaults to "blue". current_step_color (str, optional): The color of the current step to show when the activity ends. Defaults to "blue".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | blue | |
| title | Yes | ||
| subtitle | Yes | ||
| activity_id | Yes | ||
| current_step | Yes | ||
| current_step_color | No | blue |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only restates parameter names and defaults without disclosing side effects, destruction, permission requirements, or behavior on errors. 'Update' implies mutation, but no further behavioral context is given.
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 front-loaded with the core action, but the parameter list is verbose and repeats schema defaults. Each sentence adds some value, but the overall length could be reduced by omitting obvious descriptions.
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?
With 4 required parameters and an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how current_step relates to activity state, what happens after update (e.g., side effects), or how the color impacts the UI. The output schema is present but the description does not reference it, leaving context incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely restates parameter names (e.g., 'The ID of the activity to update') without adding meaningful semantics. The color and current_step_color get a bit more context, but overall, the descriptions are shallow and not helpful beyond the parameter names.
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 states 'Update an activity' clearly, but the mention of 'title and message' is slightly misleading as it includes many other fields. It distinguishes the core action from siblings like start_activity or end_activity, but could be more specific about the resource being updated.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (end_activity, send_notifications, start_activity). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.2.5end_activitysend_notificationsstart_activityupdate_activityEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: start, update, end an activity, and send notifications. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: start_activity, update_activity, end_activity, send_notifications.
With 4 tools covering the core activity lifecycle and notifications, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers the essential activity operations (start, update, end) and notifications. A missing retrieval tool (e.g., get_activity) is a minor gap but not critical for typical usage.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Publish status cards and Live Activities to iOS widgets, the Lock Screen, and the Dynamic Island.
Send, search, and manage notifications, accounts, and push preferences
Operate smplkit from your agent: feature flags, config, logging, audit, and scheduled jobs.
Push notifications for AI agents - send instant iPhone notifications from any MCP client.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/stumpyfr/mcp-activitysmith'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
