list_attachmentsRetrieve attachment metadata for a Zotero item, including keys, filenames, MIME types, links, and sizes, to inspect or manage its files.
List attachment keys, filenames, MIME types, links, and sizes for an item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| item_key | Yes | ||
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only the set of returned fields, which the output schema also covers, and says nothing about pagination via limit or how library scoping affects results. With annotations lowering the bar, this is adequate but thin.
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 with no filler and the verb first. Its brevity is appropriate to the tool's simplicity, though the trailing whitespace suggests an unpolished string rather than a deliberate omission.
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 re-explained, but four inputs at zero schema coverage go undocumented in both places, and no scoping or pagination behavior is given. For a tool taking library_type/library_id filters, this leaves real ambiguity about how results are constrained.
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 4 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them — item_key, limit, library_id, and library_type are entirely unexplained. The listed fields describe output, not inputs, 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 ('List') and resource ('attachments') and names the fields returned (keys, filenames, MIME types, links, sizes). It is recognizable as the read-side counterpart to attach_file, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools like get_item_details or download_pdf.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_item_details or download_pdf, and no prerequisites noted (e.g., which library context is needed). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.