zotero-library-mcp

List Notes

list_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve child notes for a Zotero item, with optional library targeting and content limit. Omit library details to use the default.

Instructions

List child notes for an item with bounded note content.

Pass both library_id and library_type to target another library; omit both to use the configured default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`item_key`	Yes
`library_id`	No
`library_type`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0Sep 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / library_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Library Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / library_type

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "user",
+        "group"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Library Type"
+}

First observedv0.9.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'bounded note content' detail and the library-targeting behavior, which are not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination or ordering, though the limit parameter and output schema may cover some of that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no redundant words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is compact. Every sentence adds value without padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operation and library targeting. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or the exact meaning of 'bounded', but for a simple read-only list tool this is acceptable. It could be improved by noting that limit controls the maximum number of notes returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it only explains library_id and library_type (both or neither). It does not clarify the required item_key or the limit parameter's behavior (e.g., max value, default handling). This partial coverage leaves agents uncertain about the core parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List child notes for an item'. This directly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_attachments (attachments) or get_item_details (metadata). The phrase 'bounded note content' hints at a specific behavior but does not obscure the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides guidance on parameter usage ('Pass both library_id and library_type to target another library; omit both to use the configured default') but offers no explicit direction on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Among many sibling tools, no conditions or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer when list_notes is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.