restore_itemRestore a deleted Zotero item from trash using its item key; optionally specify library ID and type for user or group libraries.
Restore an item from Zotero's trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_key | Yes | ||
| 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 this as a non-read-only (readOnlyHint false), non-destructive (destructiveHint false), closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful precondition that the item comes from the trash, but says nothing about where the item is restored to (original collection vs. unfiled), whether it needs library scoping, or what triggers failure.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.
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?
For a three-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the library-scoping parameters entirely unexplained and never states restore behavior. The existing output schema and annotations relieve it of explaining return values and safety, but the operational gap is still significant.
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 three parameters, so the description carries full responsibility and mentions none of them. It says nothing about what item_key is, or how the optional library_id/library_type should be supplied to target a user vs. group library.
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 (restore) and a specific resource (an item from Zotero's trash), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like trash_item, delete_item, or list_trash. It is clear but never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings.
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 mention of the complementary trash_item operation, and no conditions or prerequisites for invocation beyond the implicit 'item must be trashed'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.