このプロジェクトは、 Zotero用のモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）を実装したPythonサーバーです。これにより、AIアシスタント内でZoteroライブラリにアクセスできるようになります。MCPクライアントで使用するために、Zoteroとの小規模ながらも最大限の利便性を備えたインタラクション群を実装することを目的としています。
この MCP サーバーは次のツールを提供します。
zotero_search_items : テキストクエリを使用して Zotero ライブラリ内のアイテムを検索します
zotero_item_metadata : 特定の Zotero アイテムに関する詳細なメタデータ情報を取得します
zotero_item_fulltext : 特定の Zotero アイテム（PDF コンテンツなど）の全文を取得します。
これらは、任意の MCP クライアントまたはMCP Inspectorを通じて検出およびアクセスできます。
各ツールは Zotero アイテムからの関連情報を含むフォーマットされたテキストを返します。Claude などの AI アシスタントはそれらを順番に使用してアイテムを検索し、そのメタデータまたはテキスト コンテンツを取得できます。
Related MCP server: zotero-assistant-mcp
このサーバーは、 Zoteroデスクトップアプリケーションが提供するローカルAPI 、またはZotero Web APIを介して実行できます。ローカルAPIはレスポンスが若干速くなりますが、APIが有効になっている同じコンピューター上でZoteroアプリが動作している必要があります。ローカルAPIを有効にするには、以下の手順を実行してください。
Zoteroを開き、「Zotero設定」を開きます
「詳細設定」タブで、「このコンピューター上の他のアプリケーションが Zotero と通信できるようにする」というボックスにチェックを入れます。
[!重要] ライブラリ内のアイテムの全コンテンツを取得できるローカルAPIの
/fulltextエンドポイントにアクセスするには、 Zoteroベータビルド（2025年3月30日時点）をインストールする必要があります。7.1がリリースされると、この状況は解消されます。詳しくはhttps://github.com/zotero/zotero/pull/5004をご覧ください。ベータビルドをインストールしたくない場合は、Web APIをご利用ください。
Zotero Web API を使用するには、API キーを作成し、Zotero アカウント設定でライブラリ ID (通常はユーザー ID) を見つける必要があります ( https://www.zotero.org/settings/keys) 。
利用可能な構成オプションは次のとおりです。
ZOTERO_LOCAL=true : ローカルの Zotero API を使用する (デフォルト: false、下記の注記を参照)
ZOTERO_API_KEY : Zotero API キー (ローカル API では必要ありません)
ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID : Zotero ライブラリ ID (ユーザー ライブラリの場合はユーザー ID。ローカル API では必要ありません)
ZOTERO_LIBRARY_TYPE : ライブラリの種類（ユーザーまたはグループ、デフォルト: ユーザー）
uvxこれを Claude Desktop およびuvxを使用した直接の Python インストールで使用するには、 mcpServers構成に以下を追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"zotero": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--update", "zotero-mcp"],
"env": {
"ZOTERO_LOCAL": "true",
"ZOTERO_API_KEY": "",
"ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID": ""
}
}
}
}--updateフラグはオプションで、新しいバージョンが利用可能になった際に最新のバージョンをプルします。uvx がインストールuvxれていない場合は、代わりにpipx runを使用するか、このリポジトリをローカルにクローンして、以下の開発手順を実行してください。
この MCP サーバーを Docker コンテナで実行する場合は、API キーとライブラリ ID を挿入して次の構成を使用できます。
{
"mcpServers": {
"zotero": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"--rm",
"-i",
"-e", "ZOTERO_API_KEY=PLACEHOLDER",
"-e", "ZOTERO_LIBRARY_ID=PLACEHOLDER",
"ghcr.io/kujenga/zotero-mcp:main"
],
}
}
}新しいバージョンにアップデートするには、 docker pull ghcr.io/kujenga/zotero-mcp:mainを実行してください。dockerベースのインストールを使用してローカルのZotero APIと通信することも可能ですが、ZoteroアプリケーションのローカルAPIインターフェースへのネットワーク接続を確保するために、上記のコマンドを変更する必要があります。
プロジェクトに変更を加えたり貢献したりするための情報。
このリポジトリをクローンする
uv syncを実行して、 uvで依存関係をインストールします。
上記の環境変数を含む.envファイルをプロジェクトルートに作成します。
ローカル開発用にMCP Inspectorを起動します。
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv run zotero-mcpClaude Desktopに対してローカルリポジトリをテストするには、このディレクトリ内のシェルでecho $PWD/.venv/bin/zotero-mcpを実行し、Claude Desktop構成で以下を設定します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"zotero": {
"command": "/path/to/zotero-mcp/.venv/bin/zotero-mcp"
"env": {
// Whatever configuration is desired.
}
}
}
}テスト スイートを実行するには:
uv run pytest次のコマンドでコンテナ イメージをビルドします。
docker build . -t zotero-mcp:localMCP インスペクターを使用してコンテナをテストするには、次のコマンドを実行します。
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector \
-e ZOTERO_API_KEY=$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