Zotero MCP

Zotero Delete Annotation

zotero_delete_annotation

Permanently deletes a Zotero annotation by its key, bypassing the trash so removed annotations no longer remain visible in Zotero's PDF reader. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently delete a Zotero annotation. This cannot be undone. Annotations are deleted outright, as Zotero's own PDF reader does: a trashed annotation stays visible in the reader with no way to remove it there.

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": {
      "annotation_key": "<annotation_key>"
    },
    "name": "zotero_delete_annotation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`annotation_key`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and is outright, and it contrasts this with the reader's trashed-annotation behavior, which adds meaningful context beyond the name.

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 compact sentences get straight to the operation and consequence. The critical permanence warning is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes new information.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the action, the permanence, and the deletion semantics. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the main residual gap is the lack of a pointer to how annotation_key should be obtained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for annotation_key, and the description never explains what an annotation_key is or where to obtain it. The property name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 first sentence is a direct verb+resource statement: 'Permanently delete a Zotero annotation.' The resource is narrowed to 'annotation,' which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like zotero_delete_item and zotero_delete_collection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as zotero_update_annotation or zotero_delete_item. The only usage-related information is the permanence warning, which cautions rather than provides selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server