get_item_detailsRetrieve complete details for a Zotero item by its item key to view metadata, tags, and collection info.
Get full details of a Zotero item by its key.
Args: item_key: The Zotero item key
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only 'full details' and the key requirement, with no note on what happens if the key is missing or belongs to another library.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence plus a one-line arg note; nothing is padded. The docstring-style 'Args:' block is a bit formal for a one-param restatement, but it costs little.
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 needn't be described. But with 0% schema coverage and two optional library-scoping parameters unexplained, the description leaves an agent uncertain how to target group versus user libraries.
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% across 3 parameters. The description documents only the required item_key (restating the schema) and says nothing about library_id or library_type, which control which library is queried — a meaningful semantic gap given the user/group enum.
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 and resource — 'Get full details of a Zotero item by its key' — which is clearer than the bare title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_item_fulltext or search_library, leaving the boundary implicit.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives; get_item_fulltext, get_bibtex, and search_library all plausibly overlap. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.