laserfiche-mcp

laserfiche_field_definition_list

List all field definitions in a Laserfiche repository before authoring field queries or updates, returning names, types, requirements, and list values.

Instructions

List every field definition in the repository.

Use before authoring a field query or field update — returns each field's name, fieldType, isRequired, isMultiValue, listValues, etc., as the server's raw camelCase OData listing ({"value": [...]}). For the fields on one template, get_template_fields is the direct route — and returns a different, normalized snake_case shape ({"fields": [{"is_required", ...}], ...}), not this tool's raw passthrough.

On failure returns {"mode": "error", "error": <slug>}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skip`	No	0-indexed offset for pagination through large repositories.
`max_results`	No	Page size (default 25, capped by LF_MAX_RESULTS_CEILING).
`summary_only`	No	When True, return only {count, names} instead of the full listing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0Sep 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / summary_only / description

Previous value: -"When True, return only {count, names} instead of the full OData listing — useful for 'what's available?' lookups that would otherwise return 30-50 KB of definition payload."New value: +"When True, return only {count, names} instead of the full listing."

First observedv2.1.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact return envelope ('raw camelCase OData listing ({"value": [...]})'), the contrasting normalized shape of the sibling, and the failure contract ('{"mode": "error", "error": <slug>}'). It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or pagination behavior, but for a read-only listing the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 action, then routing, then return shape, then error mode. The nested parentheticals comparing raw vs normalized shapes are dense but each sentence carries information; slightly wordy rather than wasteful.

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?

For a no-param-required listing tool with an output schema, an annotation-free profile, and a rich sibling set, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, the alternative tool, the return format, and the error format. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with 3 optional params, so the schema already documents skip, max_results, and summary_only fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how summary_only interacts with the raw passthrough shape), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: 'List every field definition in the repository.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_template_fields ('the direct route' for one template), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list tools without opening either schema.

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?

'Use before authoring a field query or field update' gives an explicit when-to-use trigger, and it names the alternative tool (get_template_fields) plus the condition that selects it (fields on one template). Both the positive and negative routing are covered.

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