laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_field_definition_list

List all field definitions in a Laserfiche repository, returning names, types, requirement flags, and list values to prepare for field queries or updates.

Instructions

List every field definition in the repository.

Use before authoring a field query or field update — returns each field's name, fieldType, isRequired, isMultiValue, listValues, etc. For the fields on one template, get_template_fields is the direct route.

On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skip`	No	0-indexed offset for pagination through large repositories.
`max_results`	No	Page size (default 25, capped by LF_MAX_RESULTS_CEILING).
`summary_only`	No	When True, return only {count, names} instead of the full listing.

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 / summary_only / description

Previous value: -"When True, return only {count, names} instead of the full OData listing — useful for 'what's available?' lookups that would otherwise return 30-50 KB of definition payload."New value: +"When True, return only {count, names} instead of the full listing."

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the failure return format and hints at the information returned. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'list' strongly implies it; a small gap remains regarding any side effects or required permissions, though none are expected for a list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short paragraphs with clear front-loading of purpose. Each sentence earns its place, and the alternative routing is compact. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema and 100% param coverage, the description covers usage context, failure behavior, and sibling differentiation. It could be considered complete; the only minor omission is not explicitly stating pagination behavior beyond the schema, but that is already documented in the schema parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema, mentioning that field attributes are returned but not elaborating on skip/max_results/summary_only. It correctly stays out of the schema's way.

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-resource pair ('List every field definition in the repository') and enumerates the returned attributes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_template_fields, naming the sibling alternative, so an agent can immediately tell which tool to use.

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 concrete guidance: use before authoring field queries/updates, and names the direct route for template-scoped fields. This is explicit when/when-not advice with a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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