laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_entry_get_by_path

Resolve a Laserfiche repository path to its entry ID, enabling folder listing, entry retrieval, and field value lookups from a user-specified location.

Instructions

Resolve a backslash-delimited Laserfiche path to its entry.

Use when the user refers to a location by path. The returned id feeds list_folder, get_entry, get_field_values, etc.

Returns EntryDetail. On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>, "full_path": <str>} (not_found, auth_failed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full_path`	Yes	Path from the repository root, backslash-separated. Forward slashes are also accepted. Case-insensitive.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the failure response format and likely error slugs (`not_found`, `auth_failed`). It also clarifies that the returned `id` is meant to feed other tools, which defines the operational contract beyond what the schema shows.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, usage trigger, and return/error behavior each get one short, focused sentence. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description fills the important gaps: when to use it, how the result connects to other tools, and how failures are represented. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 schema already documents `full_path` with examples, backslash-separation, forward-slash acceptance, and case-insensitivity. The description only repeats the path style and adds downstream context rather than new parameter-level semantics.

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 and resource: 'Resolve a backslash-delimited Laserfiche path to its entry.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling lookup/search tools because it is keyed on exact path resolution rather than query or ID.

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 when the user refers to a location by path,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternative sibling tools to exclude, but the path-based condition and the downstream ID guidance make the intended context unambiguous.

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