zotero-library-mcp

Add Paper By Doi

add_paper_by_doi

Add a paper to your Zotero library by DOI. It resolves metadata via CrossRef and can place the item in a specific collection.

Instructions

Add a paper to your Zotero library by its DOI.

Resolves metadata automatically via CrossRef and creates the item in Zotero. Optionally add it to a specific collection.

Args: doi: The DOI of the paper (e.g. "10.1038/nature12373") collection_id: Optional Zotero collection key to add the paper to

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully explains that metadata is resolved automatically via CrossRef, which accounts for the open-world network behavior, and that the item is created in Zotero. It omits failure/duplicate handling and auth requirements, but adds real 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose followed by behavioral detail and an Args block; every line is meaningful and no sentence is wasted. Slight overlap between 'Add a paper to your Zotero library' and 'creates the item in Zotero' keeps it from a perfect score.

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 needn't be explained, and the CrossRef resolution is described. However, for a mutating, open-world tool the two undocumented library-targeting parameters leave a real gap an agent must fill from the schema alone.

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 must carry the whole burden, but it only documents two of the four parameters. The 'doi' entry adds an example format and 'collection_id' is explained, yet 'library_id' and 'library_type' (including the user/group enum) are unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+key ('Add a paper to your Zotero library by its DOI') and explains the mechanism (metadata resolved via CrossRef and item created in Zotero). An agent can immediately tell it apart from add_paper_by_arxiv_id, add_book_by_isbn, and the bulk add_papers_by_dois.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The DOI-scoped phrasing implies the appropriate context ('when you have a DOI'), and the sibling names make alternatives inferable, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over add_paper_by_arxiv_id or add_item_from_metadata, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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