safari-reading-list-mcp

by mcallaway

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

list_reading_list_state

Filter and list Safari Reading List articles by their processing state, including pending, added, or skipped.

Instructions

List Reading List articles by processing state. status: 'pending' (default), 'added', or 'skipped'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_reading_list_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`state_db_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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.

Deploy Server