zotero-library-mcp

Add Note

add_note

Attach plain-text or HTML notes to Zotero items as child records, linking commentary and annotations directly to the source.

Instructions

Add a note to a Zotero item.

The note is created as a child of the specified item. Supports HTML formatting (e.g. bold, italic, lists).

Args: item_key: The parent Zotero item key to attach the note to note: The note content (plain text or HTML)

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": {
      "item_key": "<item_key>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "add_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`item_key`	Yes
`library_id`	No
`library_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0Sep 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / library_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Library Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / library_type

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "user",
+        "group"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Library Type"
+}

First observedv0.9.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail (child-of-item attachment, HTML support), but omits auth/permission needs and how library_id/library_type defaulting behaves. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then two short clarifying sentences and a compact args list. The args block partly duplicates schema content, but with 0% schema coverage that repetition is doing real work rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 4-parameter mutation tool, the description leaves the library scoping parameters and any permission requirements unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it documents the two required parameters (item_key as parent key, note as plain text or HTML). The optional library_id and library_type parameters are left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to a Zotero item') and clarifies that the note becomes a child of the target item, which implicitly separates it from update_note/delete_note/list_notes. However, it never names an alternative sibling or explicitly scopes itself against them, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions update_note or list_notes as alternatives. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.