list_collectionsRetrieve all collections from a Zotero library, optionally scoped to a user or group, so AI assistants can browse and manage research folders.
List all collections in your Zotero library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on pagination, ordering, or whether nested subcollections are flattened.
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 zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and usage detail noted above.
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?
The output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the tool takes two completely undocumented scoping parameters and offers no usage context. For a listing tool whose behavior varies by library scope, this leaves a real gap.
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% for two parameters (library_id, library_type), and the description never mentions either. Since both are optional with null defaults, an agent gets no hint that they scope the listing to a user or group library, or how to supply a group ID.
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 ('List all collections') plus the containing scope ('in your Zotero library'), which separates it from list_tags, list_notes and list_libraries. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_collection_items or explain the collection hierarchy it returns.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this or get_collection_items / create_collection when exploring collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.