Primo MCP Server

primo_export

Export library records to BibTeX, RIS, or CSV for import into reference managers like Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote.

Instructions

Export library records to reference manager formats.

Args: record_ids: List of Primo record IDs to export. format: Export format -- "bibtex" (default), "ris", "csv".

Returns: Formatted export data ready for import into reference managers (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "record_ids": "<record_ids>"
    },
    "name": "primo_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No		bibtex
`record_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the export operation and return format but does not mention that it is read-only, has no side effects, or any error handling behavior. The transparency is adequate for a simple export tool but could be improved.

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 very concise, using a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. It is well-organized and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks information on error handling or prerequisites. Overall, it is fairly complete for a straightforward export tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It clearly explains both parameters: record_ids as a list of Primo record IDs and format with possible values and default. This adds value beyond the schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool exports library records to reference manager formats. The verb 'Export' and resource 'library records' are specific. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'primo_search' or 'primo_cite', the purpose is distinct enough to be clear.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving usage context implied. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server