laserfiche-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to laserfiche-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to securely search and list internal company documents via MCP tools, so they can answer employee questions based on current internal documentation.-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to interact with Labradoc's document management, email ingestion, task extraction, and integration features through MCP tools.176 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to search and read the files a user can access, including full-text matches inside PDFs and office documents, through read-only MCP tools.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to connect local knowledge bases, preview and index selected directories, search for traceable snippets with source metadata, and read indexed document versions through MCP tools.6MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables document conversion and processing through an MCP server interface for AI assistants.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to query documents in a Bedrock Knowledge Base through the MCP protocol, with tools for semantic search and agentic retrieval.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 23 tools
The six search tools (search_entries, search_content, search_natural, search_by_name, plus the name/path resolvers) have overlapping purposes despite descriptions that mostly route between them; the repeated warnings about which to use ('prefer search_content when...', 'search_entries = raw query') signal genuine ambiguity that an agent can misfire on. Task tools are also muddled: get_task_status, wait_for_task, and task_update all do the same underlying job with different timeout semantics.
Most tools follow verb_noun (entry_get, field_values_get, folder_list, document_get_edoc) but verbs are inconsistently placed: entry_get vs get_field_values vs document_find_duplicates vs task_wait. The description of task_update explicitly acknowledges the naming breaks its own convention (a '_update' that is not a write). Readable, but not a predictable pattern.
23 tools is heavy for what is essentially a document-repository surface, and the count is inflated by redundant aggregation: four search tools, three task-status tools (get_task_status, wait_for_task, task_update covering the same payload), and near-duplicate definition listers. Several tools collapse into one another, so the set carries more names than distinct operations.
Coverage is broad: entry read/write, folder listing, document text/edoc/image retrieval, duplicate detection, field/tag/template/link/audit metadata, and async task tracking. Missing write-side operations (create/move/rename/delete are implied by siblings like delete_entry but not all listed here) and no update for entry attributes, but the core CRUD and lifecycle are largely present.