find_duplicatesLocate duplicate top-level Zotero items by DOI, ISBN, or normalized title to support library cleanup.
Find duplicate top-level items by DOI, ISBN, or normalized title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | DOI | |
| limit | No | ||
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds scope by saying 'top-level items' and matching criteria, but it does not describe return grouping, pagination behavior, or how limits affect results.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It communicates the core operation efficiently.
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 and annotations reduce the burden, but the description omits usage context and most parameter semantics. For a tool with library scoping and a limit parameter, it is not complete enough to guide correct invocation beyond the basic purpose.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions possible matching values for the field parameter (DOI, ISBN, normalized title), but says nothing about limit, library_id, or library_type, leaving three of four parameters unexplained.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: find duplicate top-level items. It also names the matching criteria (DOI, ISBN, normalized title), so an agent can understand the operation without ambiguity.
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 description implies the tool is for duplicate detection but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus search_library or other sibling tools. It also does not explain field selection, library scoping, or limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.