zotero-library-mcp

Verify Items

verify_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check recently added library items for valid DOIs by re-resolving through CrossRef and comparing titles; reports missing, unresolved, or mismatched entries.

Instructions

Verify that recently added items have valid DOIs that match CrossRef metadata.

Re-resolves each item's DOI via CrossRef and compares the title. Reports items that have no DOI, DOIs that don't resolve, or title mismatches.

Args: limit: Number of recent items to check (default 10)

Pass both library_id and library_type to target another library; omit both to use the configured default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`library_id`	No
`library_type`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the verification process in detail: it 're-resolves each item's DOI via CrossRef and compares the title' and reports items with issues. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) by explaining the actual external API call and comparison logic. It also explains the library-targeting convention, adding useful behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, then elaborates on the verification process, and finally explains parameter usage. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff, and the most critical information appears first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the purpose, process, and parameters adequately. It does not describe the output format, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. It provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly, including how to target a specific library. Minor gaps like network dependency are implicit, but not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'limit' as the number of recent items to check, and describes 'library_id' and 'library_type' together: pass both to target another library, omit both to use the default. This covers all three parameters meaningfully, though it leaves the partial-parameter case ambiguous.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying that recently added items have valid DOIs matching CrossRef metadata. It specifies the resource (recent items), the action (verify via DOI re-resolution and title comparison), and what it reports. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_paper_by_doi or get_item_details, which have different actions.

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?

The description implies when to use it (after adding items, to check DOI validity) and provides context on library targeting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when one might prefer another tool, such as get_item_details for single-item checks. There is no direct 'when not to use' guidance, leaving some ambiguity.

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