zotio
The zotio server is a command-orchestration layer for the zotio CLI, allowing agents and MCP hosts to search, analyze, and manage Zotero libraries safely.
Core Tools
context— Get API domain context, resource taxonomy, auth requirements, and query tips. Recommended as the first call.command_search— Discover and inspect available zotio CLI commands by name or natural-language query (e.g., "export bibtex", "find duplicates").command_run— Execute any supported zotio CLI command (e.g.,items enrich,library health,tags audit). Write operations use preview-first semantics (--dry-run,--max-changes,--allow-destructive) and require explicit{"yes": true}to apply changes.search— Full-text search across all locally synced Zotero data using FTS5 syntax (AND, OR, NOT, phrase quotes).sql— Run read-only SQL queries against the local SQLite mirror for ad-hoc aggregations and joins.
What You Can Accomplish
Library health & CI gating: Run health checks with presets (
quick,citation,systematic-review,all) and failure thresholdsHygiene & integrity: Find duplicates, citekey conflicts, missing PDFs/abstracts/DOIs, retracted papers, and tag inconsistencies
Enrichment: Fill missing metadata from CrossRef, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, and Unpaywall
Import pipeline: Scan, resolve, and apply bulk imports with a preview-first safety envelope
Vault sync: Keep Obsidian/Logseq notes in sync with Zotero (pull, push, conflict resolution)
Export & analytics: BibTeX/CSL-JSON exports, library stats, reading list management, and annotations
Safe writes: Every mutation is preview-first; destructive ops require explicit opt-in; changes are journaled and reversible where possible
Syncs Zotero items to an Obsidian vault for note-taking and knowledge management.
Enriches Zotero items by resolving missing metadata and supporting import through Semantic Scholar's API.
Generates badge JSON artifacts from library health checks for real-time status badges.
Provides CLI and MCP server to manage, audit, and sync Zotero libraries with local reads, preview-first writes, health checks, and CI integration.
Fast proof: check a bundled library before trying zotio on your own data.
brew install orgmentem/tap/zotio # or grab a signed binary from Releases
zotio demo # bundled library: 34 classic papers, one genuinely retracted
ZOTIO_DEMO=1 zotio --data-source local items retract-check # check every DOI against Retraction Watch dataKEY STATUS TYPE NOTICE DOI DATE SOURCE TITLE
WAKEFLD98 correction correction 10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15715-2 2004-03-06 retraction-watch Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Speci...
WAKEFLD98 retracted retraction 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60175-4 2010-02-06 retraction-watch Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Speci...
FAIR002016 correction addendum 10.1038/s41597-019-0009-6 2019-03-19 publisher The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Da...
Checked 21 DOI-bearing items; 3 update notices flagged; 2 DOI(s) not registered with CrossRef.That is the bundled library catching the retracted Wakefield 1998 MMR paper,
with no Zotero install and no API key (the check queries Crossref live).
zotio demo --reset removes it.
Zotero itself red-flags a retracted item when you open it, from the same
Retraction Watch data. zotio adds what the desktop app does not: corrections
and expressions of concern, a report across a whole library that scripts can
consume, and an exit code CI can fail on.
Point it at your real library:
zotio init # guided setup: detect Zotero, key, first sync, health check
zotio items retract-check # the same check, against your real library
zotio library health --for citation --fail-on high # fit to cite? (exit 11 if not)
zotio items bibcheck thesis.tex --fail-on-unknown # every \cite{} resolves? (exit 11 if not)Why zotio
Zotero's GUI is great for reading and citing. It is painful the moment you need to operate on a library at scale: find every article missing a PDF, catch duplicate \cite{} keys before a submission, export a week of highlights, keep an Obsidian vault in sync, or hand an AI agent trustworthy context. Existing CLIs and pyzotero give you raw API access — then you write the glue, and you own the risk.
zotio is the glue, hardened:
Reads are local and free. Point at your running desktop app — no API key, no cloud round-trip, works offline against a synced mirror.
Writes are preview-first. Every mutation shows a plan before it touches anything. Gates cap blast radius; irreversible ops require an explicit opt-in; an append-only journal lets you undo the reversible ones.
Context is bounded and provenance-tagged. Every result says where it came from and how fresh it is — so a human or an agent knows whether to trust it.
zotionever calls an LLM; it does the assembly and budgeting a model is bad at, then hands off.
It is the tool you reach for when the GUI gets too manual: find the problems that bite downstream, fix them safely, ingest with review, and give agents a surface they can trust.
Related MCP server: Zotero MCP
How it works
Reads stay on your machine. Writes split by intent: creating a new item (with its attachments/PDFs) prefers the local desktop connector (localhost:23119, no key — the same channel the browser "Save to Zotero" button uses), while everything else — field edits, deletes, enrichment, tag ops, moves, and collections create/update — routes to the Zotero Web API and needs a configured key. The connector path is a preference, not a guarantee: --via auto uses it only on a personal library with the desktop running, and falls back to the Web API otherwise (group libraries always go to the cloud). Either way it's preview-first, the version-read happens locally, and the applied change is replayed into your local mirror so a follow-up read sees it without another sync.
Plane | Backend | Needs a key? |
Read | Local Zotero API ( | No |
Write — new item | Local desktop connector ( | No (connector path) |
Write — everything else | Zotero Web API ( | Yes — configured once |
External | CrossRef · OpenAlex · Semantic Scholar · Unpaywall · OpenCitations | No (feeds enrich/import) |
Local-only | Files, desktop launch, vault, introspection | No |
Run zotio doctor any time to see connectivity, cache freshness, and a writes: line telling you whether write-back is available or read-only.
The flagship: library health
One command that answers a real question — "is this library fit for the next thing I'm going to do with it?" — instead of making you run six separate audits and eyeball the output.
library health composes the checks that already exist (citekey conflicts, duplicates, missing metadata, tag drift, broken attachments) into one ranked, finding-typed report. You pick what "ready" means with --for:
| Prepares for | Checks |
| anything obviously broken | citekey conflicts, duplicates, broken attachments |
| a manuscript bibliography | missing/duplicate citekeys, citation-core fields, duplicates |
| a PRISMA screening corpus | duplicates, screenable metadata (title/abstract), full-text PDFs |
| a trustworthy Obsidian/PKM vault sync | missing/duplicate citekeys (note filenames), citation-core fields |
| a full sweep | every registered check |
$ zotio library health --for quick
Health: needs attention
Scope: library · 846 top-level items (2103 mirrored rows) · source local · synced 1d ago · preset quick
High (13)
[duplicate_candidates] doi="10.1002/bdm.2118" (2 items)
[duplicate_candidates] title="Social psychology" (3 items)
... 11 more
Skipped (precondition unmet)
broken_attachment_file — live check (needs Zotero desktop running); off by default.
Fix: zotio library health --for quick --verify-files
Remediation plan (preview-first)
duplicate_candidates — zotio items duplicates resolve --doi (preview first; add --yes after review)Three things make it trustworthy, not just convenient:
It gates CI.
--fail-on critical|high|info|noneexits11when the bar isn't met — drop it in a pre-submission hook.--require-fresh 24hexits12if your local mirror is stale.It never lies by omission. A check that needs the desktop app (broken attachments) doesn't silently vanish — it becomes a loud skip with a remedy, and if that skip is gate-relevant the run exits
9(setup required) rather than falsely passing.It points at the real fixer. Findings carry a
recommended_actionnaming the exact existing command (items enrich,items duplicates resolve,tags audit fix) — health diagnoses, dedicated commands treat.
CI for your bibliography
--badge renders any health run as a shields.io endpoint JSON artifact — healthy green, findings yellow, gate-failure red, setup required orange:
# .github/workflows/bibliography.yml (excerpt)
- run: zotio sync
- run: zotio library health --for citation --fail-on high --badge > badge.json
# exit 11 fails the job when the bar isn't met; badge.json says why
# publish badge.json anywhere shields can reach (gh-pages, gist, artifact host), then:
# https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=https://<you>.github.io/<repo>/badge.jsonYour thesis or review repo gets a live bibliography | healthy badge — and a failing build the moment a citekey conflict or duplicate slips in. Add --check-retractions to extend the gate to retracted papers (Crossref's Retraction Watch data), and gate the manuscript itself with zotio items bibcheck paper.tex --fail-on-unknown. The zotio-action packages this — install, sync, gate, and diff against a baseline so it fails only on new problems (guide).
See it running for real: zotio's own docs deploy publishes a live badge off the maintainer's real Zotero library (workflow, guide).
Safe by default: the write engine
Every write command — items enrich, tags audit fix, items duplicates resolve, items preprint-check fix, items create/update/move/delete, import apply, vault push — flows through one mutation envelope with identical, predictable semantics.
Preview is the default. You get a plan/result envelope with zero changes.
--yesapplies;--dry-runalways wins.--agentdoes not auto-apply. Agent mode sets JSON + non-interactive defaults, but a write still needs an explicit--yes.Gates cap the blast radius.
--max-changesdefaults to 500 (50 under--agent); irreversible ops (merge, permanent delete, empty-trash) refuse to run without--allow-destructive.Read-your-writes. An applied write is replayed into the local mirror immediately, and the post-write item state comes back in the envelope — a re-audit sees the fix with no follow-up
sync.Journaled + reversible. Every applied run is recorded append-only (
journal list/journal show).journal undo <run-id>reverses the reversible ops (tag renames, collection membership, and creates — reversed by trashing the created item) and loudly refuses the rest (merges, deletions, field overwrites) rather than guessing.
Import without making a mess
Bulk-import references through a review checkpoint. Nothing hits your library until you've seen — and can edit — the manifest.
zotio import scan ~/Downloads/papers # read-only: triage new vs duplicate vs attach-candidate
zotio import resolve ~/Downloads/papers -o manifest.json # resolve DOI/PMID/arXiv/ISBN → editable manifest
# ... review and edit manifest.json ...
zotio import apply manifest.json --dry-run # preview the writes
zotio import apply manifest.json --yes # schema-valid creation via the Web APIScan classifies a folder of PDFs against your existing library — extracting DOIs from filenames or the PDF bytes — so you never re-import what you already have.
Resolve turns findings into an editable JSON manifest, enriching create-entries from CrossRef. This is the human touchpoint.
Apply creates schema-valid items, preview-first, with an explicit
--attach-mode none|linked-file|storedcontract.storeduploads the file bytes:--via connectorhands the item and its file to Zotero desktop in one session, while the direct Web API route is guarded by the file-storage precondition (--allow-zotero-cloudto override).
One-shot importers are there too: import doi|pmid|arxiv|isbn|url|file|pdf.
Conflict-safe vault round-trip
Keep an Obsidian or Logseq vault in step with Zotero in both directions — without ever clobbering your prose.
zotio vault sync # Zotero → one Markdown note per item (idempotent)
zotio vault push --dry-run # your ## Notes region → a managed Zotero child note
zotio vault pull --dry-run # remote note edits → your ## Notes region (fast-forward only)Each note has a managed region (frontmatter + a fenced annotations block, refreshed on every sync) and your region (## Notes, prose preserved untouched). Write-back is fast-forward only: if both sides changed, zotio never merges blindly — it writes a reviewable conflict artifact under _vault-zotero-conflicts/ and reports it, so divergence becomes something you resolve on purpose (vault resolve --keep-vault | --keep-remote | --recreate), never a silent overwrite. Run vault audit for a read-only preflight before any push.
Configure the vault once in ~/.config/zotio/config.toml:
[vault]
root = "~/Vaults/dev" # ~ is expanded; base output dir
notes_dir = "Zotero" # notes land in <root>/<notes_dir>
format = "obsidian" # or "logseq"More that the GUI and pyzotero don't give you
Library hygiene, integrity & analytics
items retract-check— check every DOI against Crossref's Retraction Watch data: retractions, expressions of concern, and corrections, with notice DOIs and dates. Opt into thelibrary healthgate with--check-retractions. (This one reads the network.)collections gaps— citation-graph gap analysis: rank the papers your collection cites most that are missing from your library (OpenCitations + Semantic Scholar), thenimport doithem. (Network too.)items bibcheck <manuscript>— parse\cite{}/@citekeyfrom.texor pandoc Markdown and resolve every key against your library — unknown and ambiguous keys flagged, and an unknown key carries the closest keys in your library as an advisory suggestion when one is close enough to name, so a one-character typo is a named fix rather than a hand-grep of the.bib.--fail-on-unknownexits 11 for CI.tags audit— group tags that differ only by case or variant, with item counts and ready-to-run merge commands. On a real 840-tag library it surfaced 53 duplicate groups in one pass.library stats— a one-command dashboard: items by type and year, top venues, PDF coverage, and optional intake buckets with--added-by month|year.items audit— count and list items missing PDFs, abstracts, DOIs, tags, or citation-core fields;--verify-fileschecks PDFs actually exist on disk.items duplicates— detect likely duplicates by DOI or title (attachments/notes excluded), thenduplicates resolveto merge safely.items citekey-conflicts— find missing or duplicate Better BibTeX keys before they break a LaTeX build.items find— resolve a DOI, ISBN, PMID, arXiv ID, citation key, URL, OpenAlex work ID, or exact title against the local mirror before importing a duplicate. A title matches whatever its case, whitespace, quote and dash styling, or trailing full stop, so a title pasted from a reference list resolves. When the lookup as a whole matches nothing, the closest titles or keys in the library are listed separately with a score, so a typo is distinguishable from an absent paper; they are suggestions to confirm, never matches. The selectors are OR-ed, so a run that matched on another selector reports no near rows for the one that missed.
Reading & synthesis
items summarize— assemble a bounded, synthesis-ready bundle for an item or collection (citation + abstract + your annotations + a capped fulltext excerpt + known metadata gaps + a synthesis prompt) and hand it to any LLM.zotiodoes the budgeting; it never calls the model.annotations export·annotations timeline·annotations search— pull highlights and notes as Markdown or JSON, ordered by date or searched by text.reading-list— ato-readtag queue with anadd→start→donelifecycle for triaging what to read next.items note-template— generate a pre-filled Obsidian/Logseq reading note for an item.items open— print or launch azotero://deep link to an item, collection, or PDF (cross-platform).library wrapped— your Zotero year in review: hero counts, monthly rhythm with peak highlight, a type-mix ratio bar, highlights (busiest day, longest streak, deep cut, most-annotated paper, top tag), top venues and full author names, PDF coverage — plus a shareable SVG card in four layouts via--card-style overview|rhythm|picks|cycle(the card below iscycle, crossfading through all three):
Enrichment (reads external APIs, writes Zotero)
items enrich— fill missing DOIs and abstracts from CrossRef → OpenAlex → Semantic Scholar; fill missing citation fields from CrossRef; attach open-access PDFs from Unpaywall; and record provenance in each item's Extra field.--missing-citationfills only blank fields supported by the item type, including provider-backed volume, issue, and pages.--validatereports title, year, and render-field discrepancies against CrossRef, plus DOI registration failures from OpenCitations, without writing.items preprint-check— find arXiv preprints that now have a published CrossRef record;preprint-check fixupgrades them with the journal DOI — preview-first, journaled, and it never overwrites a conflicting DOI.
Export & reproducibility
items bibliography— render a shared scope with a CSL style, or export it as CSL-JSON, BibTeX, BibLaTeX, or RIS. CSL-JSON uses unique Better BibTeX citation keys for Pandoc and Quarto.collections export— a whole collection and its subcollections as one BibTeX, RIS, or CSL-JSON file, structure preserved in comments.export snapshot— a reproducible, resumable, fully paginated JSONL export with a<output>.lock.jsoncontent lockfile (sorted key+version + sha256) for drift detection and clean review handoffs.
Freshness & schema
sync·watch·tail— populate the mirror, keep it fresh with periodic incremental syncs, or stream live changes.watch --healthdiffslibrary healthbetween cycles and reports new findings to stdout or a webhook — hear about drift the cycle it appears.schema drift— after a Zotero upgrade, detect item-type / field / creator-field changes against a saved baseline.
Built for agents
zotio publishes a machine-readable trust model so an MCP host, CI job, or shell script can discover what's safe, fresh, and writable before it acts.
--agenton any command: JSON + compact + non-interactive + no color, in one flag. (It never auto-applies writes.)capabilities— the full registry (140 commands), each tagged withoperation,data_sources,write_target,destructive, andrequirespreconditions. Commands with several write routes also list each route's target and preconditions.agent-context— a structured description of the whole CLI, embedding the registry and discovery hints.which "<capability in your words>"— resolve a natural-language query to the command that does it.Stable envelopes — one mutation plan/result shape, one finding shape, one exit-code contract. Learn the grammar once.
Scope grammar — one selection vocabulary across reads, audits, exports, and enrich:
collection:KEY tag:NAME query:TEXT item:KEY saved-search:KEY (needs live desktop)Exit codes: 0 ok · 2 usage · 3 not-found · 4 auth · 5 API · 7 rate-limited · 9 precondition/setup (including another writer holds the lock — retry) · 10 config · 11 quality-gate failed · 12 freshness-gate failed · 13 degraded — incomplete: part of a read was unreadable, or part of a batched write was rejected after other elements succeeded. Output is not guaranteed; read the reported failures and reconcile before retrying.
Install
zotio comes in three pieces you can install independently: the CLI (the engine — everything runs through it), the agent skill (drives the CLI inside coding agents), and the MCP server (exposes the CLI to MCP hosts like Claude Desktop). Most people want the CLI; add the skill or MCP server for your agent of choice.
1. The CLI — zotio
Homebrew (macOS):
brew install orgmentem/tap/zotioThis installs both zotio and the zotio-mcp MCP server; brew upgrade tracks new releases.
Linux (deb / rpm / apk): there is no apt/dnf/pacman repository — the packages
are GitHub release assets. Install
with dpkg -i, rpm -i, or apk add --allow-untrusted; the
install guide has a snippet
that resolves the latest version and your architecture. Homebrew works on Linux
too — the tap ships formulae, not casks (brew install orgmentem/tap/zotio).
Windows (WinGet / Scoop): winget install OrgMentem.zotio, or
scoop bucket add orgmentem https://github.com/OrgMentem/scoop-bucket && scoop install zotio.
Both install zotio and zotio-mcp. WinGet can serve the previous version for
a short window after a release while Microsoft merges the version bump; Scoop
updates immediately.
Prebuilt binaries: every GitHub release ships archives for macOS, Linux, and Windows (amd64/arm64) with cosign-signed checksums and SBOMs. Unpack and put zotio on your PATH; on macOS clear the Gatekeeper quarantine (xattr -d com.apple.quarantine zotio), on Unix chmod +x zotio.
From source:
git clone https://github.com/OrgMentem/zotio && cd zotio && go build -o zotio ./cmd/zotioThen let the CLI walk you through setup — Zotero detection, the local-API toggle, an optional Web API key, first sync, and a health check:
zotio init2. The agent skill
A focused skill — bundled in this repo as SKILL.md — that teaches a coding agent to drive the CLI directly (the most efficient path; no MCP server in the middle).
Recommended — the skills CLI (works across Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Cline, opencode, and 40+ agents):
npx skills add OrgMentem/zotio # detect your agents and install
npx skills add OrgMentem/zotio --list # preview without installing
npx skills add OrgMentem/zotio -g # install globally (all projects)Manual:
Claude Code: copy
SKILL.mdinto~/.claude/skills/zotio/SKILL.md(or your project's.claude/skills/zotio/).Any other agent: point it at the raw file —
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/OrgMentem/zotio/main/SKILL.md— or paste it into your agent's skill store.
3. The MCP server — zotio-mcp
zotio-mcp ships alongside the CLI — the Homebrew formula and every release archive include both binaries. Register it:
# Claude Code
claude mcp add zotero zotio-mcp -e ZOTERO_API_KEY=<your-key>For Claude Desktop, every release ships per-platform MCPB bundles — download the .mcpb for your platform, double-click it, and Claude Desktop walks you through the install.
Install the zotio-mcp binary and add to ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"zotero": {
"command": "zotio-mcp",
"env": { "ZOTERO_API_KEY": "<your-key>" }
}
}
}The ZOTERO_API_KEY is optional for read-only local-desktop use (the local API needs no key); set it to enable writes and reach group libraries.
Authentication
Reads go to your Zotero desktop app at localhost:23119 — no API key required while Zotero is running. First enable the local API in Zotero: Settings → Advanced → "Allow other applications to communicate with Zotero."
Creating items and saving attachments also works keyless — those go through the same local desktop connector.
Editing writes (items update/delete/move, items enrich, tags mutations, vault push/pull/resolve, most of import apply) route to the Zotero Web API and need a key. Configure it once:
printf %s "$ZOTERO_API_KEY" | zotio auth set-token --stdin # or export ZOTERO_API_KEY=<key>Generate a key at https://www.zotero.org/settings/keys. The first Web API write prints a one-time stderr notice naming the target. A key is also needed to read group libraries or to read while the desktop app is closed. Run zotio doctor to see a writes: line reporting whether write-back is available.
Use
Use the CLI directly
# 1. Verify Zotero is running and reachable
zotio doctor
# 2. Sync your library to local SQLite for offline search + analytics
zotio sync
# 3. See the shape of your library
zotio library stats
# 4. Certify it for a citation handoff (exit 11 if it fails the bar)
zotio library health --for citation --fail-on high
# 5. Search offline
zotio search 'automation trust' --fulltext --data-source local --json
# 6. Export a week of highlights for synthesis
zotio annotations timeline --since 2026-05-01 --format markdown > this-week.mdUse the skill in a coding agent
Once installed (above), invoke /zotio <query> in Claude Code. The skill drives the CLI directly — the most efficient path, no MCP server in the middle.
Use the MCP server in an agent host
Once registered (above), the MCP server exposes a command-orchestration facade (command_search / command_run) rather than one tool per endpoint — agents discover and drive the CLI the same way a human would (see dev/adr/0001-mcp-command-surface.md; switch surfaces via ZOTIO_MCP_SURFACE). It also serves Zotero context as resources — zotero://context, zotero://agent-context, zotero://status, zotero://schema, zotero://freshness, zotero://health/{scope}, zotero://capabilities, and bounded graph resources (collections/{key}/tree, items/{key}/children|attachments|context) — plus guided prompts (prepare-library-health, prepare-import, sync-vault-safely, inspect-library, export-reading-notes, prepare-citation-export, synthesize).
Output formats
zotio collections list # human table (JSON when piped)
zotio collections list --json # JSON for scripting and agents
zotio collections list --json --select id,name,status # only the fields you need
zotio collections list --dry-run # show the request without sending
zotio collections list --agent # JSON + compact + non-interactive + no colorAlso available: --csv, --plain, --quiet, --compact, and --deliver stdout|file:<path>|webhook:<url>.
Health check & troubleshooting
zotio doctor # config, credentials, connectivity, cache freshness, writabilitydoctor: connection refused— open Zotero desktop and enable Settings → Advanced → "Allow other applications to communicate with Zotero."items missing-pdf/ analytics return nothing — runzotio syncfirst to populate the local mirror.annotations exportoutputs empty sections — PDF annotations must be made in Zotero's built-in PDF reader, not an external app.citekey-conflictsfinds no keys — install the Better BibTeX extension; citation keys live in theextrafield.Authentication errors (exit 4) —
zotio doctorto check credentials; verifyecho $ZOTERO_API_KEY.
Configuration
Config file: ~/.config/zotio/config.toml. Static request headers can be set under [headers]; per-command overrides take precedence.
Variable | Required | Description |
| No for reads | Required for writes (routed to the Zotero Web API), group libraries, and access while the desktop app is closed. Local desktop reads need no key. Configure once by piping the token into |
Command reference
Run zotio --help for the full command list, or zotio <command> --help for any subcommand. Ask the CLI directly when you know the goal but not the command:
zotio which "export bibtex for a collection"agent-context · analytics · annotations · attachments · auth · capabilities · collections · completion · creators · demo · doctor · export · feedback · groups · import · init · items · journal · library · profile · reading-list · schema · search · searches · sync · tags · tail · vault · version · watch · which · workflow
Sister project: papio
zotio manages and safeguards your Zotero library. papio is the acquisition side: it finds and downloads validated, provenance-tracked PDFs from open access and your own institutional subscriptions through your normal browser, then hands them to zotio for preview-first import. If your library has items without PDFs, papio fills them.
Sources & inspiration
Built by studying these projects and resources:
cli-anything-zotero — TypeScript
54yyyu/zotero-mcp — Python
pyzotero — Python
kujenba/zotero-mcp — Python
jbaiter/zotero-cli — Python
dhondta/zotero-cli — Python
Combjellyshen/ZoteroBridge — TypeScript
RaulSimpetru/zotero-library-mcp — Python
introfini/mcp-server-zotero-dev — TypeScript
piiinpiiins/zotero-mcp-local — Python
mcp-for-zotero — hosted service
Licensed under MIT.
Zotero is a registered trademark of the Corporation for Digital Scholarship. zotio is an independent project and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Zotero or the Corporation for Digital Scholarship.
Available Tools
6 toolscommand_runADestructive
Run one mirrorable Cobra command by its space-separated command path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Additional positional arguments only; raw flags rejected. | |
| name | Yes | Exact space-separated command path to run, such as "items enrich". | |
| flags | No | Safe flags to pass by name: command-local flags plus, for mutating commands, the write-safety gate flags (yes, dry-run, allow-destructive, allow-zotero-cloud, max-changes, continue-on-error, max-failures) — pass {"yes": true} to apply a write. Inspect available flags via command_search. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive behavior and non-read-only operation, so the bare 'Run' wording does not contradict them. The top-level description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, write-safety gates, or return behavior; those details appear in the schema, not in the description.
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 one compact sentence that front-loads the operation; it has no filler. Detailed flag semantics are correctly deferred to the schema rather than repeated in the description.
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?
The combination of the terse description, the rich flags parameter description, and the destructive/readOnly annotations gives an agent enough to invoke the tool safely. The main unresolved piece is the meaning of 'mirrorable', and there is no mention of output or error behavior, but for a command runner this is a modest gap.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already documented in the schema. The top-level description adds little beyond restating that the command is addressed by a space-separated path, which duplicates the name parameter's description.
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 names a concrete action ('Run'), a specific resource ('one mirrorable Cobra command'), and the addressing scheme ('space-separated command path'). It makes clear this executes a command rather than searches for one, but it does not name siblings or explain the unexplained 'mirrorable' qualifier.
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 implies the use case: given a command path, run it. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over command_search, context, query, or workflow_submit; the only cross-reference is the schema's note to inspect available flags via command_search, which is not in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
command_searchARead-only
Search and inspect mirrorable Cobra commands exposed through the command orchestration facade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Exact space-separated command path to inspect, such as "items enrich". | |
| query | No | Case-insensitive text to match against command names and summaries. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'search and inspect', such as result limits, pagination, or the open-world nature hinted by openWorldHint.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of commands with details). The open-world hint is unaddressed. For a simple search tool, it is adequate but incomplete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool is for searching and inspecting mirrorable Cobra commands, with a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishing it from generic search or command execution siblings.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is implied but lacks directives on alternatives like command_run or search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
contextARead-only
Get API domain context: resource taxonomy, auth requirements, query tips, and unique capabilities. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnly and openWorld. Description adds what the context contains but does not contradict annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it.
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?
No parameters exist; baseline 4 per instructions. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves API domain context including specific items (resource taxonomy, auth requirements, etc.). Distinct from sibling action tools.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first', providing clear temporal guidance. Does not explicitly name alternatives but context implies using siblings for subsequent actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchARead-only
Full-text search across synced data. Set fulltext to resolve synced PDF-text hits to parent items. Requires sync first. Large responses are bounded to the MCP tool-result budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 25, maximum 100) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (supports FTS5 syntax: AND, OR, NOT, quotes for phrases) | |
| fulltext | No | Search only synced PDF text and return parent item context |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational constraints: the requirement to sync first and the bounding of large responses to the MCP tool-result budget. These are behavioral disclosures beyond annotations and help the agent anticipate side conditions. No contradiction with annotations.
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 four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, fulltext usage, prerequisite, and response budget. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately gives actionable guidance. There is no filler or 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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational aspects: what it searches, the sync prerequisite, the response budget, and a hint for the fulltext flag. However, it does not describe the return format or how results are structured when fulltext is false, nor does it elaborate on what 'synced data' includes. Given there is no output schema, a bit more detail on expected results would improve completeness, but it is adequate for the schema-covered parameters.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds a functional hint for fulltext by explaining how it resolves PDF-text hits to parent items, but this largely rephrases the schema's parameter description. The added value is marginal; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across synced data.' It clearly identifies what the tool does. While there is a sibling command_search, the description does not explicitly differentiate the two, but the 'synced data' qualifier implies a distinct scope. It is clear enough to guide selection, though it could more explicitly contrast with command_search.
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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires sync first') and a specific use for the fulltext parameter ('Set fulltext to resolve synced PDF-text hits to parent items'). However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over command_search or other siblings, nor does it indicate when not to use it. The context is provided but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sqlARead-only
Run read-only SQL against local database. Use for ad-hoc analysis, aggregations, and joins across synced resources. Requires sync first. Returns a JSON object with rows, truncated, and row_limit; large responses are bounded to the MCP tool-result budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | SQL query (SELECT or WITH...SELECT). Tables match resource names. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), description adds return structure ('rows, truncated, row_limit') and budget bound, providing useful behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and behavioral details are front-loaded and concise.
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?
Despite no output schema and single parameter, description covers purpose, usage, return format, constraints, and budget limits, making it complete for this simple tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter description in schema is adequate; description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool runs read-only SQL for ad-hoc analysis, aggregations, and joins, differentiating it from sibling tools like command_run or search.
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?
Explicitly states use case ('ad-hoc analysis, aggregations, joins') and prerequisite ('requires sync first'), but does not list when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
workflow_submitADestructive
Submit an inline multi-step workflow executed by zotio's transactional runner — previews unless yes; one approval, one journal run id; steps validated per-command exactly like command_run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| yes | No | Apply the full workflow once instead of previewing it. | |
| vars | No | Workflow variable values. | |
| steps | Yes | Validated workflow steps. | |
| continue_on_error | No | Continue executing later steps after a step fails. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that it's a transactional runner, previews unless confirmed, steps validated per-command, and constraints like one approval. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence is concise but dense, packing multiple ideas. Could benefit from clearer structure or bullet points for readability.
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 no output schema and complex nested input, the description covers key behavioral aspects but lacks details on return values, error handling, or comprehensive parameter behavior. Adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description need not elaborate on parameters. It does add that the 'yes' flag switches from preview to apply, and steps are validated like command_run, but doesn't detail other parameters beyond what schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool submits an inline multi-step workflow, distinguishing it from single-command tools like command_run. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings beyond mentioning steps are validated like command_run.
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?
Provides some usage context: 'previews unless yes' indicates when to use the yes flag, and mentions approval and journal run id. But lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like command_run or search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
v0.21.0- Changed
search4 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / fulltextAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search only synced PDF text and return parent item context", + "type": "boolean" +} - changed
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results (default 25)"New value: +"Max results (default 25, maximum 100)" - added
Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100 - added
Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1
1 tool update
v0.19.0- Changed
command_run1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / flags / descriptionPrevious value: -"Safe flags to pass by name: command-local flags plus, for mutating commands, the write-safety gate flags (yes, dry-run, allow-destructive, max-changes, continue-on-error, max-failures) — pass {\"yes\": true} to apply a write. Inspect available flags via command_search."New value: +"Safe flags to pass by name: command-local flags plus, for mutating commands, the write-safety gate flags (yes, dry-run, allow-destructive, allow-zotero-cloud, max-changes, continue-on-error, max-failures) — pass {\"yes\": true} to apply a write. Inspect available flags via command_search."
1 tool update
v0.9.1- Added
workflow_submit
5 tool updates
v0.7.0- First observed
command_run - First observed
command_search - First observed
context - First observed
search - First observed
sql
TDQS
Each tool targets a distinct action—querying data (sql/search), inspecting or executing commands (command_search/command_run), submitting workflows, and getting context. The main confusion risk is between search and command_search, or sql and search, but the descriptions clearly separate full-text search, SQL analysis, and command lookup.
Tool names are a mix of bare nouns/verbs (sql, context, search) and noun_verb compounds (workflow_submit, command_run, command_search). The command_* group is internally consistent, but there is no uniform naming convention across the whole server.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a server covering context, data querying, command discovery/execution, and workflow submission. Each tool earns its place without feeling redundant.
The surface covers querying, command execution, workflow submission, and context, but both sql and search say 'Requires sync first' while no sync/refresh tool is exposed. Workflow lifecycle is also sparse—submit only, with no listing or status tool—leaving notable gaps around the stated prerequisites.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Remote MCP server for full read/write access to a Zotero library
An agent-first office suite Claude & ChatGPT read and write over one MCP URL.
AgentGuard — 20-tool AI safety MCP: policy preflight, risk scoring, audit logging, rate limits.
Agent-native notes, tasks, dev-docs, vaults, sync & handoffs. MCP + OpenAPI dual surface.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceRead+write MCP server for Zotero with full write support — create items, manage collections, find and merge duplicates, import BibTeX152MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn AI-powered research assistant that integrates with Zotero to read academic papers, create intelligent annotations, and generate structured notes. It enables users to highlight findings, explain formulas, and write comprehensive summaries directly within their Zotero library through natural language commands.919MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceIntegrates with Zotero's local API to search, retrieve, read PDFs, and add items by DOI from your Zotero library.53MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that exposes 45 tools for Zotero reference management, enabling AI agents to read/write items, search, extract PDF text, and manage workspaces via the Zotero CLI.202AGPL 3.0
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/OrgMentem/zotio'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server