Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

search_cjeu_cases

Read-only

Search CJEU case law via EUR-Lex CELLAR SPARQL (live — not limited to Velvoite corpus).
Returns cases matching keywords in the case title.
Use to find court decisions on a specific regulation, topic, or legal concept.
Fetch the returned url to read the full judgment text.
Requires Velvoite Premium API key.

Args:
    query: Keywords to search in case titles (e.g. 'money laundering', 'crypto-assets',
           'payment institution authorisation'). Phrase search — keep it specific.
    article_ref: Optional extra keyword to append to the title search
                 (e.g. 'Directive 2015/849', 'GDPR Article 17'). CJEU titles rarely
                 contain article numbers — use the regulation name instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`article_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the critical Velvoite Premium API key requirement and the fact that results are based on title matching. It also mentions fetching the returned URL for full judgment text. This provides valuable context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief summary paragraph followed by a clearly formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy with the annotations or schema.

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 that an output schema exists and the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, authentication requirements, and next steps (fetch URL for judgment), the description is complete for an AI agent to select and correctly invoke this tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema itself has minimal descriptions, but the Args block provides rich semantics for both parameters, including concrete examples ('money laundering', 'Directive 2015/849') and usage advice ('keep it specific', 'use the regulation name instead'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 it searches CJEU case law via EUR-Lex CELLAR SPARQL and returns cases matching keywords in the case title. The phrase 'live — not limited to Velvoite corpus' distinguishes it from other potential search tools. The verb-resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Use to find court decisions on a specific regulation, topic, or legal concept.' It also provides practical search tips like 'Phrase search — keep it specific' and warns that CJEU titles rarely contain article numbers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource (obligations, documents, enforcement, Finnish statutes, CJEU cases) with clear parameter differences. Minor overlap exists between get_obligations and get_canonical_obligations, but descriptions explicitly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools consistently use verb_noun patterns: get_ for retrievals, search_ for queries, list_documents, and audit_taxonomy. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles are present.

Tool Count2/5

At 26 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the large number of specialized search/get tools could be consolidated without losing functionality.

Completeness4/5

The API covers the full regulatory compliance workflow: company profile, obligations, deadlines, documents, enforcement, and multiple legal sources (EU, Finnish, CJEU). Some Finnish/KHO tools return URLs requiring web fetch rather than direct data, which is a minor but by-design gap.

Resources

Need Help?