laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_entry_get

Fetch metadata for a single Laserfiche repository entry, including its name, type, path, template, and page count.

Instructions

Fetch one entry's metadata: name, type, path, template, page count.

Does NOT return field values (get_field_values) or document content (get_document_edoc).

Returns EntryDetail, including web_url when a web-client link template is configured (see search_entries). On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>, "entry_id": <int>} (not_found, auth_failed).

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the failure shape (mode: error, slugs not_found/auth_failed) and the conditional return of web_url. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe pagination/permission behavior, leaving a modest gap for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then exclusions, then return/error semantics; tight use of parentheses and cross-references with no filler. Dense but every clause is functional.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully summarizes the EntryDetail return and error shape, which is generous for a one-param tool. The only substantive omission is any guidance on the sole parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required entry_id, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains what an entry_id is, its format, or how to obtain one, only echoing it inside the error example.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one entry's metadata) and enumerates the fields returned (name, type, path, template, page count). It actively separates itself from siblings by naming what it does NOT return (get_field_values, get_document_edoc), so an agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives for excluded data (get_field_values, get_document_edoc) and points to search_entries for the web_url template config, giving clear routing. It stops short of a full when-to-use, notably silent about how it differs from the near-identical sibling laserfiche_entry_get_by_path.

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