Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

french-law-resolver

by education.une.legal
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

french_b2b_clause_validator

Read-only

Assesses statutory validity and unenforceability risk for abusive B2B contract terms, derisory caps (Art. 1170 C. civ.) and significant imbalance (Art. 1171 C. civ. & L. 442-1 C. com.).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clause_categoryYesClause category: liability_cap_derisory, unilateral_termination_asymmetric, unilateral_price_modification, excessive_penalty_clause, disproportionate_audit_rights
clause_text_excerptNoExcerpt of the analyzed clause text
is_adhesion_contractNoTrue if non-negotiable adhesion contract under Art. 1110 C. civ.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / annual_contract_value_eur
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Annual contractual value in EUR",
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / clause_category
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Clause category: liability_cap_derisory, unilateral_termination_asymmetric, unilateral_price_modification, excessive_penalty_clause, disproportionate_audit_rights",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / clause_text_excerpt
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Excerpt of the analyzed clause text",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / clause_type
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Clause type: liability_cap, non_compete, unilateral_modification, penalty_clause",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / is_adhesion_contract
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "True if non-negotiable adhesion contract under Art. 1110 C. civ.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / liability_cap_eur
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Proposed liability cap in EUR (if applicable)",
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / standard_terms_adhésion
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "True if non-negotiable adhesion contract under Art. 1110 C. civ.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "clause_type"
-]New value: +[
+  "clause_category"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "audit_seal": {
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "clause_type": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "doctrinal_analysis": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "risk_level": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "validity_status": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "clause_type",
-    "validity_status",
-    "risk_level",
-    "audit_seal"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read-only assessment (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not re-state safety. It usefully discloses the legal standards applied (Arts. 1170/1171 C. civ., L. 442-1 C. com.), but says nothing about what the assessment yields — a verdict, a risk rating, or a rationale — which is the key behavioral question for a judge-style tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the governing articles front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Inputs are fully documented by the schema and read-only nature is covered by annotations, but with no output schema the description should say what the assessment returns and how the adhesion-contract flag alters the analysis. As written the agent knows what it feeds in but not what it gets back.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents clause_category (with its five enumerated values), clause_text_excerpt and is_adhesion_contract. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the citations, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('Assesses') and a well-bounded resource (statutory validity / unenforceability risk of abusive B2B clauses), pinned to concrete French articles. An agent can distinguish it from french_breach_remedy_notice and french_commercial_termination_risk, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the legal framing — this is the tool to run when a clause looks abusive — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings such as search_jurisprudence_precedent or resolve_article_status. The agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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

All french-law-resolver toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources