get_unfiled_itemsRetrieve Zotero library items not in any collection so you can review and organize unfiled references.
Get items that are not in any collection (unfiled items).
Args: limit: Maximum number of items to return (default 25)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no ordering, pagination, or library-scoping behavior — so this is the baseline-plus level appropriate when annotations do the heavy lifting.
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 core purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, and the Args note is efficient. Structure is sound, though the Args block only covers one of three parameters, making it feel truncated rather than complete.
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 described. However, with three optional parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the library_id/library_type scoping unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent deciding how to scope the query.
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, so the description must compensate. It only restates the limit parameter (which the schema already documents via a default) and is silent on library_id and library_type, leaving two of three params — including the library scoping that determines what 'unfiled' means — 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 — 'Get items that are not in any collection' — and parenthetically defines 'unfiled' as 'not in any collection,' which meaningfully distinguishes it from get_collection_items and list_collections. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands just short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the definition of 'unfiled' that this is the tool for items outside collections, with no comparison to sibling listers like get_recent_items or get_collection_items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.