Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BioCite-MCP

BioCite-MCP

by muslus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

push_to_zotero

Add a paper to your Zotero library by submitting its DOI and API credentials.

Instructions

Push a paper's metadata to a Zotero library.

Args: doi: The DOI of the paper to add. zotero_key: Your Zotero API Key (Secret). library_id: Your Zotero User ID or Group ID. library_type: "user" or "group". collection_id: (Optional) ID of the collection to add the paper to.

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": {
      "doi": "<doi>",
      "zotero_key": "<zotero_key>",
      "library_id": "<library_id>"
    },
    "name": "push_to_zotero"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiYes
zotero_keyYes
library_idYes
library_typeNouser
collection_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description lacks details on side effects, error handling, permissions, or whether it updates duplicates. It mentions the API key is secret but omits other behavioral traits.

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?

The description is concise with a brief summary followed by parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor redundancy in the docstring format, but overall efficient.

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 has 5 parameters (3 required) and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers inputs. It does not describe output, but output schema fills that gap. No mention of post-conditions, but acceptable.

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%, but the description explains each parameter beyond its name: DOI is the paper's DOI, zotero_key is a secret API key, library_id is user/group ID, library_type is 'user' or 'group', collection_id is optional. This adds value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool pushes paper metadata to a Zotero library, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like export_bibtex or search_literature.

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 lists required parameters (DOI, API key, library ID) and optional collection, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like export_bibtex or mention when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools