Este proyecto es un servidor Python que implementa el Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) para Zotero , lo que permite acceder a la biblioteca de Zotero dentro de los asistentes de IA. Su objetivo es implementar un conjunto pequeño, pero de máxima utilidad, de interacciones con Zotero para su uso con clientes MCP .
Este servidor MCP proporciona las siguientes herramientas:
zotero_search_items : busca artículos en tu biblioteca de Zotero mediante una consulta de texto
zotero_item_metadata : Obtenga información detallada de metadatos sobre un elemento específico de Zotero
zotero_item_fulltext : Obtener el texto completo de un elemento específico de Zotero (es decir, contenido PDF)
Se puede descubrirlos y acceder a ellos a través de cualquier cliente MCP o a través del Inspector MCP .
Cada herramienta devuelve texto formateado que contiene información relevante de sus elementos de Zotero, y los asistentes de IA como Claude pueden usarlos secuencialmente, buscando elementos y luego recuperando sus metadatos o contenido de texto.
Related MCP server: zotero-assistant-mcp
Este servidor puede ejecutarse con una API local ofrecida por la aplicación de escritorio de Zotero o a través de la API web de Zotero . La API local puede ser un poco más rápida, pero requiere que la aplicación de Zotero se ejecute en el mismo equipo con la API habilitada. Para habilitar la API local, siga estos pasos:
Abra Zotero y abra "Configuración de Zotero"
En la pestaña "Avanzado", marque la casilla que dice "Permitir que otras aplicaciones en esta computadora se comuniquen con Zotero".
[!IMPORTANTE] Para acceder al punto final
/fulltexten la API local, que permite recuperar el contenido completo de los elementos de su biblioteca, deberá instalar una versión beta de Zotero (a partir del 30/03/2025). Una vez lanzada la versión 7.1, esto ya no será necesario. Consulte https://github.com/zotero/zotero/pull/5004 para obtener más información. Si no desea hacerlo, utilice la API web.
Para utilizar la API web de Zotero, deberá crear una clave API y encontrar su ID de biblioteca (generalmente su ID de usuario) en la configuración de su cuenta de Zotero aquí: https://www.zotero.org/settings/keys
Estas son las opciones de configuración disponibles:
ZOTERO_LOCAL=true : utiliza la API local de Zotero (valor predeterminado: falso, consulte la nota a continuación)
ZOTERO_API_KEY : Su clave API de Zotero (no es necesaria para la API local)
ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID : Su ID de biblioteca de Zotero (su ID de usuario para bibliotecas de usuario, no es necesario para la API local)
ZOTERO_LIBRARY_TYPE : El tipo de biblioteca (usuario o grupo, predeterminado: usuario)
uvx con API local de ZoteroPara usar esto con Claude Desktop y una instalación directa de Python con uvx , agregue lo siguiente a la configuración mcpServers :
{
"mcpServers": {
"zotero": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--update", "zotero-mcp"],
"env": {
"ZOTERO_LOCAL": "true",
"ZOTERO_API_KEY": "",
"ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID": ""
}
}
}
}El indicador --update es opcional y descargará la última versión cuando haya nuevas disponibles. Si no tiene uvx instalado, puede usar pipx run o clonar este repositorio localmente y seguir las instrucciones de Desarrollo a continuación.
Si desea ejecutar este servidor MCP en un contenedor Docker, puede utilizar la siguiente configuración, insertando su clave API y el ID de la biblioteca:
{
"mcpServers": {
"zotero": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"--rm",
"-i",
"-e", "ZOTERO_API_KEY=PLACEHOLDER",
"-e", "ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID=PLACEHOLDER",
"ghcr.io/kujenga/zotero-mcp:main"
],
}
}
}Para actualizar a una versión más reciente, ejecute docker pull ghcr.io/kujenga/zotero-mcp:main . También es posible usar la instalación basada en Docker para comunicarse con la API local de Zotero, pero deberá modificar el comando anterior para garantizar la conectividad de red con la interfaz de la API local de la aplicación Zotero.
Información sobre cómo realizar cambios y contribuir al proyecto.
Clonar este repositorio
Instale las dependencias con uv ejecutando: uv sync
Cree un archivo .env en la raíz del proyecto con las variables de entorno anteriores
Iniciar el Inspector MCP para el desarrollo local:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv run zotero-mcpPara probar el repositorio local contra Claude Desktop, ejecute echo $PWD/.venv/bin/zotero-mcp en su shell dentro de este directorio, luego configure lo siguiente dentro de su configuración de Claude Desktop
{
"mcpServers": {
"zotero": {
"command": "/path/to/zotero-mcp/.venv/bin/zotero-mcp"
"env": {
// Whatever configuration is desired.
}
}
}
}Para ejecutar el conjunto de pruebas:
uv run pytestConstruya la imagen del contenedor con este comando:
docker build . -t zotero-mcp:localPara probar el contenedor con el inspector MCP, ejecute el siguiente comando:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector \
-e ZOTERO_API_KEY=$ZOTERO_API_KEY \
-e ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID=$ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID \
docker run --rm -i \
--env ZOTERO_API_KEY \
--env ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID \
zotero-mcp:localGet the full text content of a Zotero item, given the item key of a parent item or specific attachment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Get[s] the full text content', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the item key is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single, clear sentence that states the purpose and parameter context without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to be complete, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple tool.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'item_key' refers to 'a parent item or specific attachment', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Item Key' title. However, it doesn't provide details on format, examples, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full text content of a Zotero item' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full text content'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zotero_item_metadata' (which likely returns metadata) and 'zotero_search_items' (which searches for items). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
The description implies usage by specifying 'given the item key of a parent item or specific attachment', which provides some context on when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zotero_item_metadata' for non-full-text data or 'zotero_search_items' for finding items first. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get metadata information about a specific Zotero item, given the item key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid item keys), or the format of returned metadata. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic purpose.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get metadata information') and includes the key constraint ('given the item key'). There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but misses behavioral details like authentication needs or return format. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at what metadata is returned, which it doesn't, leaving room for improvement.
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?
The description adds meaning by explaining that 'item_key' is used to identify 'a specific Zotero item', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'Item Key' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately by providing context, though it doesn't detail the key's format or source. Baseline is high due to low parameter count.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'metadata information about a specific Zotero item', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'zotero_item_fulltext' (which likely retrieves full text content) and 'zotero_search_items' (which searches multiple items) by focusing on metadata retrieval for a single item. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what metadata fields are included, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description implies usage by specifying 'given the item key', suggesting this tool is for when you have a specific item identifier. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'zotero_search_items' (e.g., use this for known items, use search for unknown items) or mention prerequisites like authentication. The context is clear but lacks detailed exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for items in your Zotero library, given a query string, query mode (titleCreatorYear or everything), and optional tag search (supports boolean searches). Returned results can be looked up with zotero_item_fulltext or zotero_item_metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| qmode | No | titleCreatorYear | |
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the search functionality and mentions that results can be looked up with other tools, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality with key parameters, the second provides important follow-up context about sibling tools. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining the search purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, authentication requirements, and doesn't fully document all parameters (missing 'limit'). Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'query', 'qmode' (with specific mode examples), and 'tag' (including boolean search support). It doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter, but covers 3 of 4 parameters with meaningful context beyond their names. This significantly improves understanding compared to the bare schema.
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 clearly states the verb ('Search for items'), resource ('in your Zotero library'), and scope ('given a query string, query mode... and optional tag search'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that results can be looked up with 'zotero_item_fulltext' or 'zotero_item_metadata', indicating this is a search tool while siblings provide detailed item data.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching the library with query parameters) and implicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting that results can be looked up with those tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternative search methods within the same tool family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
zotero_item_fulltextzotero_item_metadatazotero_search_itemsScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: zotero_search_items finds items, zotero_item_metadata retrieves metadata for a specific item, and zotero_item_fulltext gets full text content. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
All tools follow a consistent 'zotero_item_*' pattern with snake_case, using descriptive suffixes (fulltext, metadata, search_items) that clearly indicate their specific actions. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a Zotero library management domain. While the tools cover basic search and retrieval, typical library operations like creating, updating, or deleting items are missing, suggesting an incomplete surface.
The tool set is severely incomplete for Zotero library management. It only supports search and read operations (search, get metadata, get fulltext), with no ability to create, update, delete, or manage items, collections, or tags, which are core to the domain.
Zotero MCP server for Claude and ChatGPT: search, citations, safe writes, PDF passages and pages.
Remote MCP server for full read/write access to a Zotero library
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Personal knowledge base MCP server with semantic search, auto-categorization, metadata extraction