update_noteReplace the content of an existing Zotero note by supplying its note key and the new note text. Use it to update note details or correct stored information in your Zotero library.
Replace the content of an existing Zotero note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| note_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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the operation wholesale replaces content rather than appending or patching — but says nothing about note format (HTML vs plain text), library scoping, or what happens to prior content.
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 the key verb first and no filler; the trailing whitespace is the only noise. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved more by omission than by editorial discipline.
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 mutation tool with 4 undocumented parameters the description omits too much: no note format expectations, no library disambiguation, no confirmation of whether the original content is recoverable. The agent cannot safely call this without guessing at the library scoping parameters.
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 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. 'Content' loosely maps to the 'note' param and 'existing note' gestures at 'note_key', but library_id and library_type — which determine which library the note lives in — receive no explanation anywhere.
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 specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('content of an existing Zotero note'), making the operation unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with add_note/delete_note/list_notes via 'existing' and 'replace', but never names a sibling explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this versus add_note (for new notes), delete_note, or update_annotation. The only implied guidance is that the note must already exist, and even that is not framed as a precondition or paired with an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.