Skip to main content
Glama
pallaprolus

mendeley-mcp

by pallaprolus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

Update Document

mendeley_update_document

Update any field on an existing Mendeley library document—title, authors, year, source, abstract, identifiers, tags, or keywords—while leaving unspecified fields unchanged.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing library document, such as title, authors, year, source, abstract, identifiers, tags, or keywords. Only supplied fields change; a supplied list of tags or keywords replaces the existing list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
yearNo
titleNo
sourceNo
authorsNo
abstractNo
doc_typeNo
keywordsNo
document_idYes
identifiersNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / keywords
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Keywords"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Tags"
+}
  2. Addedv0.4.1

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 full burden. It discloses the partial update semantics ('Only supplied fields change') and the replacement behavior for tag/keyword lists, which are valuable behavioral details not available from the schema alone. It does not mention permissions, but for a CRUD update this is reasonably sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant wording. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the replacement caveat is stated clearly. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core update behavior and list replacement, and the output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Key details like the required document_id are delegated to the schema. For a moderately parameterized tool, this is sufficiently complete, though it could briefly mention that the document must exist.

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?

The schema provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It lists all updatable fields and explicitly clarifies that a supplied list of tags or keywords replaces the existing list, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not detail nested structures like authors or identifiers, but those are visible in the schema types.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing library document' and enumerates the specific fields that can be modified (title, authors, year, source, abstract, identifiers, tags, keywords). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, search, get, or add.

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 phrase 'existing library document' implies this is for updates on already-created entries, as opposed to creation (add_document) or deletion (delete_document). However, no explicit contrast with alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving usage mostly implied.

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