laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_folder_list

Lists immediate child documents and subfolders of a Laserfiche folder for browse-style navigation. Provide a folder ID to retrieve entries, total count, and pagination link.

Instructions

List the immediate children (documents and subfolders) of a folder.

For browse-style navigation from a known folder; the root is typically ID 1. Resolve a path string first with get_entry_by_path; to search the whole repository use a search tool instead.

Returns entries, total_count (when the build supports $count) and next_link. On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>, "folder_id": <int>} (not_found, auth_failed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skip`	No	0-indexed offset for pagination. Combine with max_results to walk a large folder in chunks; check next_link to know when to stop.
`folder_id`	Yes	Integer entry ID of the parent folder. The root folder is typically ID 1.
`max_results`	No	Page size (default 25, capped by LF_MAX_RESULTS_CEILING).

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 and does a strong job: it documents the success return keys (entries, total_count, next_link), conditional $count behavior, and failure mode with specific error slugs. It could add more about auth prerequisites or side-effect-free nature, but for a list operation the disclosed contract is substantive.

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?

Three tight paragraphs each serve a distinct purpose: purpose, usage context, and return/error contract. No filler or repetition; the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists and the schema covers all parameters, the description adds exactly the missing context: immediate-children scope, navigation workflow, pagination boundary via next_link, and failure shapes. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 applies. The schema already fully explains skip, folder_id, and max_results, including pagination behavior and root ID 1. The description reinforces folder_id usage but does not add significant parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('list') and a precise scope ('immediate children (documents and subfolders) of a folder'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like laserfiche_entry_search and laserfiche_entry_get_by_path. The browse-style navigation framing further clarifies its role.

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 when-to-use guidance: browse-style navigation from a known folder. It also names the sibling to use first for path resolution (get_entry_by_path) and redirects whole-repository searches to a search tool. This is model behavior for usage guidance.

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