Citexact : jurisprudence administrative française

Chronologie Affaire

chronologie_affaire

Read-onlyIdempotent

Chronologie de l'affaire : jugement de première instance, appel, cassation, renvoi — reconstituée à partir des visas des décisions (mentions verbatim), avec les décisions ultérieures présentes dans Citexact, même quand elles ne la citent que par sa date et sa juridiction. Indique notamment si la décision a ensuite été annulée ou confirmée (champ « effet », lu dans le dispositif). Une étape portant le champ « rapprochement » a été reliée sans n° : vérifier la phrase verbatim. À appeler avant de s'appuyer sur un arrêt de CAA ou un jugement.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "chronologie_affaire"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant Citexact d'une décision (ex. CAA-LYON-25LY03403-20260917).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses real data-quality behavior: the chronology is rebuilt from verbatim mentions in the decisions, later decisions are included even when they cite the case only by date and jurisdiction, the 'effet' field is read from the operative part to say whether the ruling was later annulled or confirmed, and a 'rapprochement' step is flagged as an unnumbered link whose verbatim sentence must be checked. That is exactly the caveat an agent needs before treating the output as authoritative.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource and its stages come first, then provenance, then the reliability caveats. The long compound sentences pack several ideas each, but every clause carries information — no filler to cut.

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?

With a single documented parameter and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully explains the meaning of the 'effet' and 'rapprochement' fields the agent will encounter. Nothing essential for calling 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?

There is a single parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the Citexact ID format example, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema says, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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?

The description names the resource explicitly (the procedural chronology of a case: first-instance judgment, appeal, cassation, remand) and states where the data comes from (visas of the decisions, plus later decisions in Citexact). It is clearly a reconstruction tool rather than a fetch or search, though the opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb and never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like verifier_citation.

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?

It gives a concrete call condition: 'À appeler avant de s'appuyer sur un arrêt de CAA ou un jugement' — use it before relying on an appellate or first-instance ruling. No alternative tool is named and no exclusion case is given, so the routing is clear but not complete.

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

All Citexact : jurisprudence administrative française tools Inspect

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

Need Help?