Skip to main content
Glama
mcallaway

safari-reading-list-mcp

by mcallaway
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: exporting to file, listing by state, and marking an item. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (export_reading_list, list_reading_list_state, mark_reading_list_item) using snake_case.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a focused server that handles exporting, listing by state, and marking items in Safari Reading List.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers essential operations for processing reading list items (export, list by state, mark status), but lacks a tool to add or delete entries, which might be desired for full lifecycle management.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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?

    Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic mutation action but does not explain idempotency, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The output schema is present but not described.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief to fully serve the tool's purpose and could benefit from additional structured details.

    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 3 parameters (including an optional one), no annotation support, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks context on parameter syntax, output structure, and operational behavior.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only hints at 'url' and 'status'. The optional parameter 'state_db_path' is entirely unexplained. The status values are implied ('added'/'skipped') but not formally documented.

    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 (mark) and resource (Reading List URL) with specific statuses ('added' or 'skipped'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools export_reading_list and list_reading_list_state, relying on the user to infer the distinction.

    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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for use.

    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists articles by state, without revealing any traits like idempotency, safety, side effects, or response format. Minimal transparency beyond the operation itself.

    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 extremely concise: one sentence with an additional clarification on the status parameter. It front-loads the action and resource, with no superfluous words. Every part earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has an output schema, return value details are covered. The description explains the status parameter but not the state_db_path parameter, which is a significant omission for a simple two-parameter tool. It is partially complete but lacks full parameter context.

    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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'status' parameter by listing the expected values and default. However, it does not mention the 'state_db_path' parameter at all, leaving a gap for half the parameters.

    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 'list' and the resource 'Reading List articles', and specifies the filtering by processing state. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'export_reading_list' and 'mark_reading_list_item' which have different purposes. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, which would add clarity.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for listing articles by status but does not provide context on prerequisites, default behavior, or when to choose another tool.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions output file format, but does not disclose behavioral traits like overwriting behavior, directory creation, permissions needed, or error handling.

    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?

    Two concise sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states primary action, second sentence clarifies time range defaults and options.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    With 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers time range logic but lacks details on output path, side effects, or return value (output schema exists but not leveraged). Adequate but with gaps.

    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 0%, but description adds meaning for time range defaults and full_export option. However, output_path parameter is left unexplained (format, permissions). Partially compensates.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Clear verb+resource: 'Export Safari Reading List entries to a JSON file.' Immediately states output format and distinguishes from sibling tools which manage state or mark items.

    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?

    Provides context on default time range (last 7 days) and options (full_export or custom range), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions.

    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

safari-reading-list-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

safari-reading-list-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

safari-reading-list-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

Latest Blog Posts

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/mcallaway/safari-reading-list-mcp'

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