zotero-library-mcp

Add Paper By Doi

add_paper_by_doi

Add a paper to your Zotero library by its DOI, automatically resolving metadata via CrossRef and creating the item, with optional collection and targeting another library.

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

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
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description is consistent and adds real behavioral detail beyond them, namely that metadata is fetched automatically from CrossRef (the external/open-world dependency) and an item gets created. It does not disclose auth/permission needs or what happens if the DOI is already in the library, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose and mechanism are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is compact and scannable. The library-targeting note at the end is slightly separated from the parameter list but still earns its place.

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 write tool that performs external resolution and item creation, the description covers purpose, mechanism, optional collection placement, and library targeting. With an output schema present it need not describe return values, but it omits failure behavior (invalid DOI, duplicates) and permission requirements, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, and it largely does: it documents doi (with a format example '10.1038/nature12373'), collection_id as the optional target collection, and the paired library_id/library_type semantics ('pass both... omit both'). Only the enum values for library_type ('user'/'group') and the null/default nature of the optional fields are unstated.

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 and resource ('Add a paper to your Zotero library by its DOI') and explains the mechanism (metadata resolved via CrossRef, item created in Zotero). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_paper_by_arxiv_id, add_book_by_isbn, and add_item_from_metadata.

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?

It gives useful context for targeting ('pass both library_id and library_type... omit both to use the configured default') and notes the optional collection. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over add_papers_by_dois (bulk) or add_item_from_metadata, nor any prerequisites or duplicate-handling advice.

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