zotero-library-mcp

Delete Note

delete_note

Destructive

Permanently remove a Zotero note by its note key. Optionally target a specific user or group library; otherwise uses the configured default.

Instructions

Permanently delete a Zotero note.

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
`note_key`	Yes
`library_id`	No
`library_type`	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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'permanently delete' aligns and adds specificity beyond the annotation. It also discloses the library targeting behavior (both parameters together or neither), which is not in the annotations. No contradictions; the description enriches the behavioral context without overstepping.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the library targeting detail. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple deletion tool with three parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: the action and the library targeting logic. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like trash_item, but the permanent wording implies a distinction. Given the annotations and output schema, this is adequate without being exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the relationship between library_id and library_type (pass both or omit both), which is crucial for correct invocation. The required note_key is not described but its meaning is obvious from the tool name, so the description partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Permanently delete a Zotero note.' It specifies the exact resource type (note) and differentiates from siblings like delete_item and delete_annotation by naming the resource. The verb is explicit and the permanence adds a critical nuance.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to include library_id and library_type, explaining the default behavior when omitted. However, it does not directly contrast with alternatives like trash_item or delete_item. The word 'permanently' implicitly differentiates from a reversible trash action, but this is not stated explicitly.

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