laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_entry_compare

Diff two Laserfiche entries' attributes and template fields, listing all mismatches and missing values. Use it to verify duplicate records or confirm imports copied every field.

Instructions

Diff two entries' attributes and (optionally) template field values.

Use this instead of fetching both entries yourself and comparing by eye — it's a deterministic set comparison, not a judgment call, and it tells you exactly which of possibly dozens of fields disagree instead of making you scan two JSON blobs. Typical uses: "are these two copies of the contract actually the same?", "what changed between this record and the template version?", "did the import bring over every field?".

Compares five entry attributes — name, entryType, templateName, extension, pageCount — plus, when include_fields is true (the default), every template field value on either entry. Timestamps and entry IDs are intentionally excluded: two copies of the same document differing only in creation time is noise, not a finding.

A field present on one entry's template but absent on the other's is reported separately (only_left_fields / only_right_fields) from a field present on both with different values (differences) — "you forgot to fill this in" and "these disagree" are different problems.

Sibling tools: get_entry / get_field_values to inspect one entry on its own; get_entry_by_path to resolve a path to the entry ID this tool needs when you only have a location, not an ID.

Returns {"mode": "entry_comparison", "left_entry_id", "right_entry_id", "identical": bool, "differences": [{"kind": "attribute"|"field", "name", "left", "right"}, ...], "same": [<attribute/field names>], "only_left_fields": [...], "only_right_fields": [...]}. On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>, "entry_id": <int>, "side": "left"|"right"} — not_found (bad ID on either side), auth_failed. This tool never writes to Laserfiche.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`left_entry_id`	Yes	Entry ID of the first ('left') entry.
`include_fields`	No	Also compare template field values, not just entry attributes. Set false to skip the two extra get_field_values round-trips when only name/type/extension/page-count matter.
`right_entry_id`	Yes	Entry ID of the second ('right') entry.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.3.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses exactly what is compared (five attributes plus optional fields), what is excluded (timestamps and entry IDs), how differences are categorized (only_left/only_right vs differences), and the exact success and error return shapes. It also explicitly states 'This tool never writes to Laserfiche', covering side effects.

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 well-organized: purpose, usage, behavior, return format, and error handling are each in their own paragraph. Every sentence adds value, and it is long only because the tool is complex. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use, what it does, what it returns (including failure modes), what it excludes, and that it is non-destructive. Since no output schema is provided, the explicit return structure in the description is essential and is fully supplied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 context about the include_fields cost (two extra round-trips) and clarifies left/right roles, but most of this is already present in the schema descriptions. The description does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Diff') and a precise resource (two entries' attributes and template fields), then distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it replaces manual fetching and comparison. It lists concrete use cases and names the sibling tools it is not (get_entry, get_field_values, get_entry_by_path), so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this instead of fetching both entries yourself and comparing by eye') and provides typical scenarios. It also tells when to set include_fields to false (skip round-trips) and points to alternative tools for inspecting a single entry or resolving a path. No ambiguity remains about selection.

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