list_notesRetrieve child notes for a Zotero item with bounded content, using an item key and optional library or limit to inspect notes without loading full data.
List child notes for an item with bounded note content.
| 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 this a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – note content is 'bounded' – but says nothing about truncation thresholds, pagination behavior, or the limit default.
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. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 no explanation, but for a four-parameter listing tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves library scoping, limit semantics, and pagination behavior unaddressed. An agent cannot tell how to constrain or page results.
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 four parameters, so the schema contributes no meaning. The description only hints at item_key ('for an item') and limit ('bounded note content'); library_id and library_type, which control the library scope, are entirely undocumented in both places.
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 child notes') and scopes it to 'an item', which separates it from the mutation siblings add_note, update_note, and delete_note. It does not, however, distinguish itself from list_attachments or explain what 'child' means relative to the item hierarchy.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The only contextual cue is the phrase 'for an item', which implies you need an item in hand but never says so explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.