laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_entry_search

Execute a raw Laserfiche query to find matching entries, returning entry IDs, names, paths, and total count.

Instructions

Run a raw Laserfiche search query and return matching entries.

Use when you can already express the search in Laserfiche syntax. Prefer search_content when the question is about what documents say (it returns the matched passages); search_natural when you need the grammar and available template/field names first; search_by_name for a simple name pattern.

Syntax: {LF:Name="Onboarding*"} name pattern; {LF:Basic~="phrase"} content search over document text/OCR, fields, annotations and names (,option="D" = document text only); {[Template]:[Field]="value"} field match; {LF:LookIn="\Path"} folder scope; combine clauses with & / |.

Returns entries (id, name, entry_type, full_path), total_count, next_link. On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>} (server_error is common — this endpoint is fragile on some builds; see docs/error-contract.md).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Laserfiche search expression. Each clause wrapped in braces and combined with `&` (AND) or `\|` (OR). Quote string values with double quotes; escape inner quotes with `\"`.
`max_results`	No	Page size. Defaults to LF_MAX_RESULTS_DEFAULT (25). Capped at LF_MAX_RESULTS_CEILING (typically 200).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0Sep 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / examples

Previous value: -[
-  "{LF:Name=\"*.pdf\"}",
-  "{LF:Name=\"Onboarding*\"} & {LF:LookIn=\"\\\\Imports\\\\2024\"}",
-  "{[Loan Application]:[Last Name]=\"Smith\"}"
-]New value: +[
+  "{LF:Name=\"*.pdf\"}",
+  "{LF:Basic~=\"unpaid balance\",option=\"D\"}",
+  "{LF:Name=\"Onboarding*\"} & {LF:LookIn=\"\\\\Imports\\\\2024\"}",
+  "{[Loan Application]:[Last Name]=\"Smith\"}"
+]

First observedv2.1.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

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 delivers: it discloses the return shape, pagination via next_link, failure mode with structured error slugs, and even warns that server_error is common due to endpoint fragility. This goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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 appropriately dense for a complex query tool: purpose first, then usage routing, then syntax, then return/error behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the content easy to scan.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: when to use it, how to write queries, what results look like, and what happens on failure. It even points to an error contract document for edge cases.

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 meaningful query-language semantics beyond the schema, including clause types (name, content, field, folder scope), combining with & and |, and option syntax, which helps an agent construct valid queries rather than just understand the parameter shape.

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: 'Run a raw Laserfiche search query and return matching entries.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'raw' syntax, which separates it from search_natural, search_content, and search_by_name.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when you can already express the search in Laserfiche syntax.' It also names alternatives with clear conditions, such as preferring search_content for document content, search_natural for grammar/field name discovery, and search_by_name for simple name patterns.

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