laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_field_values_get

Retrieve template field values for a Laserfiche entry to answer metadata questions such as status or reviewer. Returns each field name, type, and values.

Instructions

Read the template field values currently on an entry.

For metadata questions ("what's the status?", "who's the reviewer?"). For the entry's own properties use get_entry.

Returns {"values": [...]} — each item has field_name, values (always a list), field_type, is_multi_value. An empty list usually means no template is assigned. On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>, "entry_id": <int>}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entry_id`	Yes

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (including each field's properties), the meaning of an empty list, and the error format. It doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Read' implies that. It could add a note on permissions, but given the simplicity, this is solid.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides usage guidance, and finally details the return/error formats. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or fluff. It is compact yet comprehensive.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the operation, the return format, failure behavior, and a key edge case (empty list meaning no template). It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description references 'on an entry', clarifying that entry_id identifies an entry, but it doesn't explain how to obtain the ID or any format details beyond the schema's integer type. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Read the template field values') with a clear resource ('on an entry'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a key sibling (get_entry) by naming the alternative and its purpose, so an agent can immediately identify when this tool is appropriate.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for metadata questions, and when not to: for the entry's own properties, where get_entry is the alternative. This directly addresses the most likely confusion and leaves no ambiguity.

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