Reclaim.ai

The vendor ships and maintains the server itself. A wrapper built by Zapier, Composio or a similar third party does not count as official. The status was established by hand on 2026-08-24. On 2026-09-04 the recorded URL answered an auth challenge, but so did a path on that host which cannot exist, so the challenge proves a wall rather than a running MCP server.

mcp_status, verbatim from the file:

official

mcp_url, verbatim from the file:

https://mcp.reclaim.ai (endpoint confirmed live - returns HTTP 401 Unauthorized, i.e. a real OAuth-gated server, not dead); Reclaim's pricing page also lists "Claude/Claude Code MCP support" and "Microsoft Copilot/Copilot Cowork MCP support" as features across tiers.

• https://mcp.reclaim.ai

A tool below is one the server NAMES. Nobody has called it. That is the same two tier honesty rule the rest of the directory runs on: a named tool is research, and BENCH-TESTED stays the only claim that anybody ran anything.

This list came from a repo the vendor does not own. Those are that author's tools for the vendor's API, not the vendor's own published surface, and the two must not be read as the same thing.

• Issue
  Solution
  evidence: in a README table · calling it reads · from a third party repo, so these are that author's tools, not the vendor's published surface
• Method
  Command
  evidence: in a README table · calling it reads · from a third party repo, so these are that author's tools, not the vendor's published surface
• Profile
  Tools
  evidence: in a README table · calling it reads · from a third party repo, so these are that author's tools, not the vendor's published surface
• full
  40
  evidence: in a README table · calling it reads · from a third party repo, so these are that author's tools, not the vendor's published surface
• minimal
  20
  evidence: in a README table · calling it reads · from a third party repo, so these are that author's tools, not the vendor's published surface
• standard
  32
  evidence: in a README table · calling it reads · from a third party repo, so these are that author's tools, not the vendor's published surface

141 of the 741 entries that record an official or community MCP server carry a harvested tool list. The other 600 are unmeasured, which is not the same as empty. Harvest last run 2026-09-27. Every name across every server is on the tools index.

This is a third party's CLI. It was published by somebody other than the vendor, so it is that author's surface for the vendor's API and not the vendor's published surface. The two must not be read as the same thing.

Install, as the source shows it:

pip install reclaim-cli

quoted from https://pypi.org/project/reclaim-cli/ on 2026-09-27, via pypi, a third party source

Packages seen, with the version on 2026-09-27:

• pypi: reclaim-cli 0.2.3, third party
• pypi: reclaim-cli 0.2.3, third party

A CLI being listed means the harvest found an install command or a package on a stated date. Nobody has run it. Every command is quoted verbatim from the URL beneath it. Harvest date 2026-09-27.

api_gate, verbatim from the file:

unknown for general REST API tier-gating - a developer API-key settings page exists (app.reclaim.ai/settings/developer) suggesting broad availability, but no page found states whether API access itself is free-tier-eligible. Confirmed paid-gated: webhooks are Business/Enterprise-only per reclaim.ai/pricing (not on Lite/Starter). MCP support itself is listed as included across multiple pricing tiers.

949 of 1252 entries carry an unknown gate. Unknown is a legal answer and it ships as unknown rather than as a guess.

No documentation URL recorded.

727 of 1252 entries are in the same position. Blank is legal and it is published as blank.

Not measured. github_url, github_stars, github_last_commit and github_archived are null on every entry in this build.

The refresh rail specced in SPEC section 7.2 has not been run. An unstamped star count is a lie, so nothing is shown rather than something stale.

A github.com URL already appears somewhere in this entry, which is a seed for that rail and not a measurement of repo health:

• https://github.com/universalamateur/reclaim-mcp-server

github.com/reclaim-ai tied to the vendor by rule 3, account website https://reclaim.ai has the vendor's domain, confidence strong

The five most recently pushed, on 2026-09-08:

Kind is a heuristic guessed from the repository name, topics and description, not a fact the vendor stated. A repository count is activity, not a verdict. Read 2026-09-08.

• Read calendar availability

A job tag means the vendor says the tool does this. It is not a test result, not proof the capability is reachable through the tool's MCP server, and not proof it is available on the gate this entry records.

Tagged by machine-pass on 2026-08-25 against the closed 56 job vocabulary. 271 of 1,252 entries carry at least one tag; 849 tags are assigned in total.

• https://reclaim.ai
• https://reclaim.ai/pricing
• https://mcp.reclaim.ai
• https://github.com/universalamateur/reclaim-mcp-server
• https://erikmackinnon.com/tools/reclaim-mcp/
• https://reclaim.ai/blog/dropbox-acquires-reclaim
• https://www.geekwire.com/2024/dropbox-acquires-reclaim-a-calendar-app-that-uses-ai-scheduling-to-boost-productivity/

7 source URLs. Raw sources field, verbatim:

https://reclaim.ai, https://reclaim.ai/pricing, https://mcp.reclaim.ai, https://github.com/universalamateur/reclaim-mcp-server, https://erikmackinnon.com/tools/reclaim-mcp/, https://reclaim.ai/blog/dropbox-acquires-reclaim, https://www.geekwire.com/2024/dropbox-acquires-reclaim-a-calendar-app-that-uses-ai-scheduling-to-boost-productivity/

Every field above is rendered from directory.json exactly as the build produced it. Nothing is summarised and nothing is dropped. The one change made at render time is typographic and it is disclosed on the methodology page.