Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@xbghc/zotero-mcp

@xbghc/zotero-mcp

by xbghc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Item

update_item

Update metadata fields of an existing Zotero item by specifying only the fields to change; unchanged fields remain as-is.

Instructions

Update metadata fields of an existing item. Only provide fields you want to change - other fields remain unchanged. Common fields: title, date, DOI, url, abstractNote, publicationTitle, volume, issue, pages, extra.

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": "update_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
DOINoNew DOI
urlNoNew URL
dateNoNew publication date
extraNoNew Extra field content (free-form text; often used for citation keys, additional identifiers, etc.)
issueNoNew issue number
pagesNoNew page range
titleNoNew title
volumeNoNew volume number
itemKeyYesThe key of the item to update
abstractNoteNoNew abstract
publicationTitleNoNew journal or publication name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that only specified fields are updated and others are preserved, which is critical for safe use. It does not mention authorization, errors, or return values, but covers the most impactful behavior.

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-load the purpose, then give usage guidance, then list common fields. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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 straightforward metadata update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, and common fields. It lacks explicit success/failure handling, but that is not critical for a simple update operation. The presence of 11 parameters and full schema coverage makes the description sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the partial-update semantics that apply to all parameters, and the 'Common fields' list provides a quick reference. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions by clarifying how the parameters are used together.

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 explicitly states 'Update metadata fields of an existing item' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from create_item and delete_item. It also narrows the scope to metadata fields, aligning with the sibling tool set.

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 phrase 'Only provide fields you want to change - other fields remain unchanged' gives clear partial-update usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_item or delete_item, though the 'existing item' wording implies it.

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