Skip to main content
Glama

laserfiche_task_update

Check the status of an async Laserfiche operation or wait for its completion with configurable timeout and polling interval.

Instructions

Check or wait on an async operation. timeout_seconds=0 returns immediately.

Wraps the two underlying tools:

  • timeout_seconds=0get_task_status. Returns the current payload without waiting. Right for "is this done yet?" polling loops written by the caller.

  • timeout_seconds>0 (default 60) → wait_for_task. Polls at poll_interval_seconds until terminal or until the deadline.

Args: operation_token: Token from the originating async tool. timeout_seconds: 0 for single-poll; >0 for blocking wait. Bounded above by what your MCP client tolerates as a tool call duration. poll_interval_seconds: Delay between status checks when waiting. Bounded below at 0.1s. Ignored when timeout_seconds=0.

Returns: Same payload as get_task_status / wait_for_task. The wait variant adds timed_out: bool for deadline misses.

On failure: same shapes as the underlying tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operation_tokenYesToken from the originating async tool (delete_entry, copy_entry, occasionally import_document).
timeout_secondsNo0 for single-poll (get_task_status semantics); >0 for blocking wait (wait_for_task semantics).
poll_interval_secondsNoDelay between status checks when waiting. Bounded below at 0.1s. Ignored when timeout_seconds=0.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: two execution paths, return payload (same as underlying tools), added timed_out field for wait variant, and failure shapes. No contradictions or hidden traits.

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?

The description is well-structured with paragraphs and bullet points, about 10 sentences all adding value. Slightly wordy but not excessive. Each section earns its place.

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 (context indicates true), the description explains return payload and failure handling. It covers all parameter behaviors, modes, and edge cases. No missing context for agent decision-making.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds semantic value: operation_token origin (async tools list), timeout_seconds behavior and client-tolerance bound, poll_interval_seconds lower bound and ignored condition. Exceeds schema info.

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 checks or waits on an async operation, distinguishing two modes based on timeout_seconds. It explicitly mentions wrapping two underlying tools, providing specific verb-resource combinations and differentiation from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear guidance on when to use timeout_seconds=0 (single-poll) vs >0 (blocking wait), and mentions polling loops. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient. Siblings include get_task_status and wait_for_task, but this tool is a composite.

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