list_zotero_collectionsRetrieve a Zotero library's collections by paging through 100-item API results, so you can identify collection IDs and names for further queries.
List collections in the user's library, following Zotero's 100-item pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| collections | No | ||
| total_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that results are returned in Zotero's 100-item pages, which tells the agent to expect paginated output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler that front-loads the operation and resource before adding the pagination note. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. Purpose plus the pagination behavior is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly, though a note on how to traverse subsequent pages would fully close the loop.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case under the rubric. The description correctly implies a no-argument, library-wide enumeration with no filtering to configure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('collections') scoped to the user's library, so the agent can distinguish it from list_zotero_items or search_zotero. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, but the resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent infers this is the enumeration call for collections, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of search_zotero as an alternative for filtered lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.