zotio
MCPB · ZOTIO-MCP_0.32.0_LINUX_AMD64.MCPB · 6 COMPONENTS
Zotero MCP server: local-first search, library checks, and preview-first writes for AI agents.
Last scanned (13 hours ago)
Scores higher than 90% of MCPB servers
Category Education and Research
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
Provenance & Transparency45
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 0 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability86
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 803 tokens (~66/item across 12 items; 6 tools + 6 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 6 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 7 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (12)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (4)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 31 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 16 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed mcpb/https://github.com/OrgMentem/zotio/releases/download/v0.32.0/zotio-mcp_0.32.0_linux_amd64.mcpb
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | mcpb |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
command_run ~155
Run one mirrorable Cobra command by its space-separated command path.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | string | – | Additional positional arguments only; raw flags rejected. |
| flags | object | – | 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-fail… |
| name | string | yes | Exact space-separated command path to run, such as "items enrich". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
command_search ~61
Search and inspect mirrorable Cobra commands exposed through the command orchestration facade.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | string | – | Exact space-separated command path to inspect, such as "items enrich". |
| query | string | – | Case-insensitive text to match against command names and summaries. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
context ~29
Get API domain context: resource taxonomy, auth requirements, query tips, and unique capabilities. Call this first.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search ~164
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 | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| fulltext | boolean | – | Search only synced PDF text and return parent item context |
| limit | number | – | Max results (default 25, maximum 100) |
| query | string | yes | Search query (supports FTS5 syntax: AND, OR, NOT, quotes for phrases) |
| scope | string | – | Item cohort: library | collection:KEY | tag:NAME | item:KEY | query:TEXT | saved-search:KEY; join arms with AND to intersect them, e.g. collection:KEY AND tag:NAME; requires fulltext. Membership appl… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
sql ~79
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 | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | SQL query (SELECT or WITH...SELECT). Tables match resource names. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
workflow_submit ~137
Submit an inline multi-step workflow executed by zotio's workflow runner — previews unless yes; each mutation has its own run_id and shares a workflow_run_id; steps apply in order without rollback; steps validated per-command exactly like command_run.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| allow-destructive | boolean | – | Allow destructive workflow steps; required together with yes even when a step declares allow-destructive. |
| continue_on_error | boolean | – | Continue executing later steps after a step fails. |
| steps | array | yes | Validated workflow steps. |
| vars | object | – | Workflow variable values. |
| yes | boolean | – | Apply the full workflow once instead of previewing it. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the zotio MCP server?
zotio ships as an MCPB bundle, a single file you download and open in an MCP host that supports MCPB bundles, such as Claude Desktop. The host reads the launch command from the bundle's own manifest, so there is no command to copy. Before opening it, check the file's SHA-256 matches the one the MCP registry declares for it, f3741cdadb4719406d188b0627e0c456cccd285d92944fe29000be59ff7223cd; the commands to do that are on this page. If it does not match, do not open it.
mcpb · zotio-mcp_0.32.0_linux_amd64.mcpb
Download bundleCheck the download matches the SHA-256 the MCP registry declares before you open it. If it does not match, do not open the file.
SHA-256
f3741cdadb4719406d188b0627e0c456cccd285d92944fe29000be59ff7223cd
macOS / Linux
echo "f3741cdadb4719406d188b0627e0c456cccd285d92944fe29000be59ff7223cd zotio-mcp_0.32.0_linux_amd64.mcpb" | shasum -a 256 -c
Windows (PowerShell)
(Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 .\zotio-mcp_0.32.0_linux_amd64.mcpb).Hash -eq "f3741cdadb4719406d188b0627e0c456cccd285d92944fe29000be59ff7223cd"
Run it in the folder you saved the bundle to, then open the file with an MCPB-capable host such as Claude Desktop.
What is the zotio MCP server?
zotio is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.OrgMentem/zotio. Zotero MCP server: local-first search, library checks, and preview-first writes for AI agents. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/OrgMentem/zotio/releases/download/v0.32.0/zotio-mcp_0.32.0_linux_amd64.mcpb).
Is the zotio MCP server safe to use?
zotio scores 56 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the zotio MCP server expose?
zotio exposes 6 tools: command_run, command_search, context, search, sql, workflow_submit. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 625 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the zotio MCP server under?
zotio declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the zotio MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on zotio, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 8 more. 4 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about zotio: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts and Dependency health. One category scores 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an MCPB bundle, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.