Reader MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authentication, document CRUD (create, read, update, delete), bulk update, and tag listing. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'reader_verb_noun' snake_case pattern, e.g., reader_create_document, reader_list_documents. Consistent and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the core operations for the domain without excess. The count feels well-scoped and purposeful.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers CRUD, bulk operations, tags, and authentication. The list_documents tool can retrieve individual documents via ID and includes content, so no major gaps.
Average 4.4/5 across 7 of 7 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 March 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals key behaviors beyond annotations, such as the fact that tags replace existing tags (not append) and that an empty string in notes clears them. Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, which aligns with the update action.
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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, uses bullet-like formatting, and each line earns its place. It is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential update behavior, including side-effects like tag replacement. It lacks explicit mention that the document must already exist, but that is implied by the required 'id'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to most parameters. For example, it clarifies that 'id' is required, 'tags' replaces (not appends), 'notes' can be cleared, and 'location' and 'category' have cited enum values. Some parameters like 'author' only repeat the parameter name.
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?
The description clearly states 'Update a document in your Readwise Reader library,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'reader_delete_document' and 'reader_bulk_update_documents' by focusing on a single document update.
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'reader_bulk_update_documents' for bulk updates or 'reader_create_document' for new documents. No when-not-to-use or scenario context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is clear. Description adds that the tool returns a response with deleted count and ids, but does not elaborate on other behaviors like idempotency or error states.
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?
Description is two sentences plus structured args/returns, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter set and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, the parameter, and the return type. It could mention idempotency implications or failure scenarios, but for a basic delete tool it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description specifies that 'ids' is an array of document IDs and requires at least one. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has title 'Ids' and type.
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?
Description clearly states the tool deletes documents from the Readwise Reader library. It specifies the verb 'delete' and the resource 'documents', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, list, or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description indicates it can delete one or more documents and requires at least one ID. While it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear, and the constraint on the parameter is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds minimal context ('from your Readwise Reader library') and return type hint, but nothing beyond what annotations cover.
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 two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose, and the second provides a brief return hint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (zero parameters, existing output schema), the description is adequately complete. It states what it lists and the return type. Missing details like pagination are not critical due to the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description need not add parameter information; baseline is 4 as per rubric.
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?
The description clearly states 'List all tags from your Readwise Reader library,' using a specific verb (List) and resource (tags). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like reader_list_documents, which list documents, not tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'List all tags,' making it obvious when to use this tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-not or alternative guidance, but the context of sibling tools and zero parameters makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool raises ValueError on 401 or 429 responses, providing crucial error handling context beyond the annotations.
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, with only two short paragraphs. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, and error conditions. It is complete for a simple auth check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description naturally cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no parameter documentation is needed.
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?
The description clearly states 'Verify authentication with the Readwise Reader API', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with documents and tags, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking API authentication or connectivity. While it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the context is clear enough given no sibling tools perform auth checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists all optional fields and their allowed values (e.g., location enums), adding detail beyond annotations. It also mentions the return type (BulkUpdateResponse). However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., partial failures) and atomicity, though annotations already note openWorldHint=true.
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 well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, followed by bullet-pointed parameter details. It is concise with no unnecessary text, and the key constraint (max 50) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (BulkUpdateResponse), the description covers input fields thoroughly and mentions the max limit. It could benefit from clarifying error behavior or idempotency, but overall it provides sufficient context for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (additionalProperties: true), so the description provides critical meaning by enumerating all valid fields (id, title, author, etc.) and their types. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of structure.
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?
The description explicitly states 'Bulk update multiple documents (max 50 per request)', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like reader_update_document (single) and reader_create_document (creation) by specifying 'bulk update'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for bulk operations with the 'max 50 per request' constraint, and the existence of reader_update_document for single updates provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details such as pagination via pageCursor, filtering options, and the withContent flag affecting response size. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 well-structured with a clear introductory sentence followed by an 'Args:' block listing each parameter. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While not overly verbose, the parameter descriptions could be slightly more concise (e.g., combine similar filters), but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, 0 required, and an output schema described, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, all parameters with semantics, and return type (ListDocumentResponse with count, results, nextPageCursor). It is complete for a listing tool with no missing details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It provides brief but clear semantics for all 8 parameters, including the meaning of 'tag' (filter by tag keys, empty list for untagged) and 'updatedAfter' (ISO 8601 format). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type and enum definitions.
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?
The description clearly states 'List documents from your Readwise Reader library', specifying the verb (list) and resource (documents). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reader_create_document and reader_delete_document by focusing on listing and filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (to list documents) and explains each parameter's filtering purpose, including special cases like empty tag list for untagged documents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, though the sibling tools are distinct operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) align with description implying writes. The description adds behavioral details: url can be a placeholder, html bypasses scraping, and returns CreateDocumentResponse. No contradictions.
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 well-structured with a summary sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters and return type. It is relatively long but efficiently organized, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter semantics, return format, and behavioral nuances (e.g., placeholder URLs, html override). No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive details for all 13 parameters, including default values, alternatives (e.g., placeholder URL), and formatting (ISO 8601 for dates). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description states 'Save a new document (URL) to your Readwise Reader library,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like reader_update_document or reader_delete_document, as it is the only creation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly communicates usage for creating new documents but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, it's clear from context that this is the only creation tool among siblings.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![reader-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xinthink/reader-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xinthink/reader-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![reader-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xinthink/reader-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xinthink/reader-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/xinthink/reader-mcp-server'

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