delete_itemPermanently removes an item from your Zotero library by item key. Use it to clear unwanted references and keep your collection accurate.
Permanently delete an item from your Zotero library.
Args: item_key: The Zotero item key to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_key | Yes | ||
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / library_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Id"
+}Input schema / properties / library_typeAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "user",
+ "group"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Type"
+}v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by emphasizing 'permanently' (non-recoverable, unlike trash), but says nothing about permission requirements, cascading effects on attachments/notes, or irreversibility beyond the adverb.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with the destructive nature stated first. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.
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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a destructive mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the two undocumented optional parameters and the absent trash_item comparison leave real gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only restates item_key, which the schema already names. The optional library_id and library_type parameters are documented in neither place, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('item from your Zotero library'), and the adverb 'permanently' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling trash_item. However, it never names trash_item explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
The word 'permanently' hints at when this tool is appropriate versus a recoverable soft-delete like trash_item, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.