zotero-library-mcp

List Trash

list_trash

Read-onlyIdempotent

List items in Zotero's trash so you can locate an item key and restore or review deleted references.

Instructions

List items in Zotero's trash, e.g. to find a key for restore_item.

Args: limit: Maximum number of items per page (default 25, max 100) start: Offset of the first item; use the footer's suggestion for the next page

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_trash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`start`	No
`library_id`	No
`library_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.10.2Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: page-size bounds (max 100) and the pagination idiom of following the footer's suggested next offset.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. Slightly loose phrasing ('use the footer's suggestion') but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and pagination is hinted at. However, two of four parameters (library_id, library_type) are never explained anywhere, and the description references a 'footer' that is only meaningful via the output schema, leaving the scoping behavior underspecified.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it documents only limit and start (with defaults and the max-100 cap anguage). The two library-scoping parameters, library_id and library_type, are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap for a tool that spans user and group libraries.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List items in Zotero's trash') and ties it to a concrete downstream consumer, 'restore_item', which helps separate it from siblings like delete_item or trash_item. It is clear but the differentiation is a use-case hint rather than an explicit contrast with alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'e.g. to find a key for restore_item' gives a clear when-to-use scenario and links this tool into the restore workflow. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the context for invoking it is unambiguous.

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