safari-reading-list-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_reading_list

Export Safari Reading List entries to a JSON file with customizable date ranges—choose last 7 days, full history, or a specific time period.

Instructions

Export Safari Reading List entries to a JSON file. Defaults to the last 7 days unless full_export is true or a custom range is provided.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_reading_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output_path`	Yes
`start_time`	No
`end_time`	No
`full_export`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`success`	Yes
`output_path`	Yes
`exported_count`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes
`filters_applied`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`error`	Yes
`new_to_db`	Yes
`already_added`	Yes
`already_skipped`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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.

Deploy Server