save_pdfSave a Zotero PDF to an authorized local server path using its item key, so assistants can store attachments for offline access or processing.
Save a Zotero PDF to an authorized local server path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_key | Yes | ||
| save_path | Yes | ||
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | No | ||
| attachment_key | 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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful scoping detail that the target is an 'authorized' server path. However it never explains the destructive aspect (e.g. whether an existing file is overwritten) nor the authorization requirement, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, but it is thin rather than economical — the trailing whitespace and missing detail suggest under-specification, not deliberate brevity.
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 not be described, but for a 5-parameter destructive write tool with 0% schema coverage, no usage guidance, and no explanation of library/attachment selection, the description is not complete enough to invoke confidently.
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%, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely implies that item_key is the PDF item and that save_path is the local target, while library_id, library_type, and attachment_key are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
The description states a specific verb (save) and resource (a Zotero PDF) plus the destination (an authorized local server path). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling download_pdf, leaving real ambiguity about which tool an agent should pick.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite download_pdf and attach_file being obvious contenders. The phrase 'authorized local server path' hints at a precondition but never states it as a rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.