zotero-library-mcp

Add Paper By Arxiv Id

add_paper_by_arxiv_id

Add a paper to Zotero using its arXiv ID. Fetches metadata and creates a preprint entry, optionally adding to a collection.

Instructions

Add a paper to your Zotero library by its arXiv ID.

Fetches metadata from the arXiv API. If the paper has a DOI, resolves it via CrossRef for richer metadata; otherwise creates a preprint entry directly. Optionally add it to a specific collection.

Args: arxiv_id: The arXiv ID of the paper (e.g. "2301.07041") collection_id: Optional Zotero collection key to add the paper to

Pass both library_id and library_type to target another library; omit both to use the configured default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arxiv_id`	Yes
`library_id`	No
`library_type`	No
`collection_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, which already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it fetches metadata from the arXiv API, resolves DOIs via CrossRef when present, and otherwise creates a preprint entry directly. This gives the agent useful expectations about side effects and data sources.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a short explanation of the metadata-fetching behavior, then a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value and the most important details are 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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational details: how metadata is obtained, what happens with no DOI, optional collection insertion, and library targeting. It does not discuss duplicate handling or invalid arXiv IDs, but those are not essential given the output schema and non-destructive annotation.

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 must compensate, and it largely does. It explains arxiv_id with an example, collection_id as an optional Zotero collection key, and library_id/library_type as a pair that must both be passed or both omitted. It does not specify patterns or constraints beyond that, but it adds meaningful semantics not present in 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 a specific verb, resource, and method: 'Add a paper to your Zotero library by its arXiv ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_paper_by_doi, add_book_by_isbn, and add_item_from_metadata, which are for different input types.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a paper is identified by an arXiv ID, with optional collection targeting and library selection. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the first sentence and parameter guidance make the intended usage unambiguous.

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