zotero-library-mcp

Verify Items

verify_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks recently added Zotero items for valid DOIs and CrossRef title matches, reporting missing DOIs, broken links, or metadata mismatches.

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)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output 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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: it discloses an external CrossRef resolution step and enumerates the three reported failure classes (missing DOI, unresolved DOI, title mismatch). It stops short of stating rate-limit or network-failure behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact explanation of what gets reported. The Args block repeats the schema's default rather than adding information, a minor inefficiency, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description does describe the report categories well. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any library scoping explanation leaves a real gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters. The description only restates the limit parameter (which the schema already types with a default of 10) and says nothing about library_id or library_type, which would otherwise be undocumented and unclear in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (recently added items) with the precise mechanism: re-resolving each item's DOI via CrossRef and comparing titles. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as find_duplicates or get_recent_items.

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 usage (checking recently added items for DOI validity) and documents the default limit, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g., vs find_duplicates or health_check). The scope 'recently added' is the only selector hint.

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