laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_task_wait

Wait until an async Laserfiche operation finishes, returning status with timed_out flag to guide retries.

Instructions

Block until an async operation reaches a terminal state.

Preferred over manual polling. Returns the same payload as get_task_status plus timed_out — true when timeout_seconds elapsed first, so the caller can decide whether to keep waiting. On a failed poll returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`operation_token`	Yes	Operation token returned by an async tool (delete_entry, copy_entry, sometimes import_document).
`timeout_seconds`	No	Maximum wait; on deadline the last status returns with timed_out=true.
`poll_interval_seconds`	No	Delay between status checks. Bounded below at 0.1s.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.3.0Sep 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / operation_token / description

Previous value: -"Operation token returned by an async tool (delete_entry, copy_entry, occasionally import_document). Server-scoped; tokens from a different server instance won't resolve."New value: +"Operation token returned by an async tool (delete_entry, copy_entry, sometimes import_document)."

removedInput schema / properties / operation_token / examples

Removed value: -[
-  "op-12345-abcd",
-  "task-9f2c-7c1e"
-]

changedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / description

Previous value: -"Maximum time to wait. Set higher for large folder deletes or large copies. Returns the last observed status with timed_out=True if the deadline is reached."New value: +"Maximum wait; on deadline the last status returns with timed_out=true."

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool blocks, that it returns the same payload as get_task_status plus a timed_out flag, and that on a failed poll it returns an error object with a slug. This covers the key behavioral traits (blocking, timeout, error handling) without contradicting any structured data. The description could mention that it is non-destructive, but the nature of 'wait' makes that obvious.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The opening sentence immediately states the core behavior, followed by usage guidance and return specifics. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. This is an exemplary structure for an MCP tool description.

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 output schema exists and the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics, nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing. It explains the timeout behavior, the error mode, and the relationship to get_task_status. The tool is not overly complex, and the description is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context. For operation_token, it specifies that it comes from async tools like delete_entry, copy_entry, sometimes import_document. For timeout_seconds, it clarifies that on deadline the last status returns with timed_out=true. For poll_interval_seconds, it mentions the delay between checks and the lower bound. These enrich the schema without repeating it, so a 4 is warranted.

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's core action: 'Block until an async operation reaches a terminal state.' It specifies the resource (async operation) and the condition (terminal state), and differentiates from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as 'Preferred over manual polling' and referencing get_task_status. This is a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Preferred over manual polling' and explains the return payload relative to get_task_status. It implies that get_task_status is a single-check alternative, but does not explicitly state 'use get_task_status when you only need one status check' or list other exclusions. Still, the guidance is actionable and points to the key distinction between blocking and non-blocking behavior.

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