Skip to main content
Glama

laserfiche_entry_search_by_name

Find entries by name pattern with wildcards, optionally scoped to a folder path. Simplifies file search without complex query syntax.

Instructions

Find entries by file/folder name pattern, optionally scoped to a folder path.

Use when the user is searching by name and the full Laserfiche query syntax is overkill. This wraps search_entries with a {LF:Name="..."} (plus optional {LF:LookIn="..."}) clause built for you.

Args: name_pattern: A name with optional wildcards — * matches any sequence, ? matches one character. Examples: "Onboarding*" (starts-with), "*.pdf" (ends-with), "Smith,?" (exactly one char after the comma). in_folder_path: Backslash-delimited Laserfiche path to scope the search to. Example: "\Imports\2024". max_results: Page size (default 25, capped by LF_MAX_RESULTS_CEILING).

Returns: same SearchResults shape as search_entries.

On failure: returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>, ...}. See docs/error-contract.md. Note that SimpleSearches is the same fragile endpoint behind search_entries — fall back to search_natural if you get repeated server_error results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
name_patternYesName with optional wildcards. `*` matches any sequence (including empty); `?` matches exactly one character. Case-insensitive. No wildcards = exact match.
in_folder_pathNoOptional backslash-delimited folder path to scope the search. Forward slashes are also accepted.
max_resultsNoPage size (default 25, capped by LF_MAX_RESULTS_CEILING).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool wraps search_entries, uses the same fragile endpoint, and describes the return shape and error format. It also mentions case-insensitivity and wildcards. It could add more about rate limits or pagination details, but the existing transparency is quite good.

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-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, On failure). It is concise, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, return shape, error handling, and alternatives. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% with good descriptions, but the description adds extra value with detailed wildcard examples for name_pattern, path format for in_folder_path, and a note about max_results default being capped by LF_MAX_RESULTS_CEILING. These examples enhance understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool finds entries by file/folder name pattern and positions it as a convenience wrapper over search_entries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_entries and search_natural by specifically targeting name-based searches without full query syntax.

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 says 'Use when the user is searching by name and the full Laserfiche query syntax is overkill.' It also provides a fallback strategy: 'fall back to search_natural if you get repeated server_error results.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/SamuelSHernandez/laserfiche-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server