@xbghc/zotero-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Item Details

get_item

Retrieve complete metadata for a single Zotero item using its unique key. Access all fields including title, creators, abstract, DOI, URL, tags, and collections.

Instructions

Get complete metadata of a single item by its key. Returns all fields: title, creators, abstract, DOI, URL, tags, collections, etc. Use this after search_items to get full details of a specific item.

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": {
      "itemKey": "<itemKey>"
    },
    "name": "get_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`itemKey`	Yes	The unique key of the item (e.g., "ABC12345")

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 carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns all fields and lists examples, but it does not address behavior for missing/invalid keys, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Still, the read-only nature is evident and it is more transparent than many tools.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by return fields and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read operation with one parameter, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned and when to use it. However, it could clarify that 'complete metadata' excludes children or fulltext, which are covered by sibling tools. Given the sibling list, this is a minor gap.

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 has 100% parameter description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the key comes from search_items and that it is 'its key,' linking the parameter to the workflow. This goes beyond the schema's basic string description.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get complete metadata of a single item by its key.' This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like get_item_fulltext (fulltext content) and get_item_children (child items). The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this after search_items to get full details of a specific item,' providing a clear workflow context. However, it does not mention when to prefer alternatives like get_item_children or get_item_fulltext, so exclusions are missing.

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