zotero-library-mcp

Remove From Collection

remove_from_collection

Remove an item from a Zotero collection while keeping it in your library. Specify the item key and collection key to detach it without deleting the reference.

Instructions

Remove an item from a collection without deleting it from the library.

Args: item_key: The Zotero item key collection_id: The collection key to remove it from

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_key": "<item_key>",
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it explains exactly what 'remove' means — detachment from the collection only, not deletion from the library — which resolves the ambiguity the annotation alone leaves open. It stops short of error/idempotency behavior, so not a 5.

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 behavioral scoping sentence is front-loaded and the argument block is tight. The 'Args:' list is slightly awkward formatting, but there is no wasted prose.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 4-parameter mutation tool, two parameters (library_id, library_type) are entirely undocumented, leaving a real gap an agent would need to resolve.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden, yet it documents only item_key and collection_id (the two required params). The optional library_id and library_type parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the library-resolution semantics — critical for a tool that must locate an item — unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (item from a collection) and immediately scopes it: 'without deleting it from the library.' This distinguishes it from delete_item, delete_collection, and trash_item in the sibling list, so an agent can pick the right tool without comparing schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the clarification that the item stays in the library, which implicitly frames when this is preferable to delete_item. However, it never names add_to_collection as the inverse or states prerequisites (e.g., does the item need to be in the collection first?). Guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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