searchRetrieve relevant Zotero items and full-text content using company-knowledge compatible queries.
Company-knowledge compatible search over Zotero items and full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no result limits, ranking behavior, or scoping constraints — so it contributes nothing over 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?
It is a single short sentence, which is appropriately brief, but the vague phrase 'Company-knowledge compatible' consumes the limited space that should have gone to scoping or usage detail.
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 explained. But with three undocumented parameters (0% coverage), no usage guidance, and multiple confusable search siblings, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently choose and invoke this tool.
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 the full burden and fails to compensate. It never explains the query semantics, nor what library_id/library_type scoping does, even though library scoping is central to how this search differs from a global search.
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 names a verb (search) and a resource (Zotero items and full text), so the general purpose is inferable. However, the modifier 'Company-knowledge compatible' is unexplained jargon, and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as search_library and search_fulltext, which it appears to overlap.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the very similar siblings (search_library, search_fulltext). No prerequisites, scope conditions, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.