@xbghc/zotero-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Item by Identifier

create_item_by_identifier

Create a new Zotero item from a DOI, ISBN, PMID, or arXiv ID. Automatically fetches metadata to save published papers quickly.

Instructions

Create a new item by looking up metadata from DOI, ISBN, PMID, or arXiv ID. This is the preferred way to add published papers - metadata is fetched automatically. Requires Translation Server to be running (see README for setup). Examples: "10.1038/nature12373" (DOI), "978-0-13-468599-1" (ISBN), "PMID:12345678", "arXiv:2301.00001"

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "create_item_by_identifier"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Tags to add to the created item
`identifier`	Yes	DOI, ISBN, PMID, or arXiv ID
`collections`	No	Collection keys to add the item to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that metadata is fetched automatically and that a Translation Server is required, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens on lookup failure, duplicate items, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for an operation.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a usage recommendation, a prerequisite, and relevant examples. Every sentence contributes meaning with no repetition or padding.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisite, and input format examples. It does not cover failure handling or return values, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it is largely complete. Slightly less transparent about success/failure behavior prevents a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid identifier formats (e.g., '10.1038/nature12373', 'PMID:12345678'), which goes beyond the schema's simple list of identifier 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new item by looking up metadata from DOI, ISBN, PMID, or arXiv ID.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_item by emphasizing automatic metadata lookup and positioning itself as the preferred method for adding published papers.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context by stating 'This is the preferred way to add published papers' and notes a prerequisite (Translation Server). It implies an alternative (create_item) but does not explicitly state when to use the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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