zotero-rag

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_library

Search the full text of Zotero PDFs with hybrid semantic and keyword matching to retrieve the best passages, complete with author, year, title, page and a zotero:// link. Filter by author, tag, collection, type or year.

Instructions

Hybrid semantic + keyword search over the full text of PDFs in the Zotero library.

Returns the best matching passages with author, year, title, page and a zotero:// link. query: what to look for, in Polish or English (searching both languages often helps). author/tag/collection: case-insensitive substring match. item_type: e.g. journalArticle, book, thesis. per_item: max passages per work (raise it when studying a single source).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`author`	No
`year_to`	No
`per_item`	No
`item_type`	No
`year_from`	No
`collection`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it names the retrieval mechanism (hybrid semantic + keyword), the unit returned (best-matching passages), and the fields included (author, year, title, page, zotero:// link). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or result truncation/ranking behavior, which is a minor gap for an inherently non-destructive search.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and return shape, then a compact per-parameter block. Every line adds information and none repeats the schema or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return-value mention is sufficient rather than redundant. For a 9-parameter hybrid search, the description covers method, scope, and the semantically tricky filters; only the year-range and limit parameters lack explanation.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it explains the substantive ones: query accepts Polish or English, author/tag/collection use case-insensitive substring matching, item_type takes values like journalArticle/book/thesis, and per_item controls passages per work. limit, year_from, and year_to are left undocumented, so a few parameters still require inference from their names.

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 ('search') and a precisely scoped resource ('full text of PDFs in the Zotero library') plus the retrieval method ('hybrid semantic + keyword'). The library-wide scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_within_item, and an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Offers practical invocation hints ('searching both languages often helps', 'raise per_item when studying a single source'), which is real guidance. However it never states when to prefer this over search_within_item, get_context, or list_items, and there are no exclusions, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server