library_statsGet a quantitative overview of your active Zotero library with item counts and collection stats. Use this summary to assess library size and organization.
Report a quantitative overview of the active library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to set a baseline, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool reports a 'quantitative overview' but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, what side effects (if any) might occur, or what specific data points it returns. The ambiguity about its operational behavior limits 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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy.
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 that there is no output schema or parameters, the description provides sufficient context for a simple stats tool. The phrase 'quantitative overview' is somewhat generic but adequately conveys that the tool returns summary counts or metrics about the active library, which is enough for typical usage.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no parameter-related information is missing or misleading.
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 uses a clear verb ('Report') and a specific object ('quantitative overview of the active library'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_item, search_library, and list_collections. It unambiguously conveys that this tool provides aggregate statistics about the library.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. While the name and object imply a stats-gathering role, the absence of any guidance on selecting it over list_collections or search_library leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.