Vue d'ensemble du protocole JusticeLibre : cartographie des sources et règles d'acheminement.
Appeler cet outil en priorité pour appréhender la matrice de
compatibilité des identifiants, les périmètres de recherche de chaque
juridiction, et les spécificités des bases de données exploitées.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safety, so the description adds context about what information the tool provides (source mapping, routing rules, identifier compatibility). No contradictions with annotations, and it enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple, zero-parameter help tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool tells the user and when to use it. It's complete for the agent to decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and instead focuses on the value delivered, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: an overview of the JusticeLibre protocol, covering source mapping and routing rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/get tools by being a meta-resource about the protocol itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs calling this tool first ('Appeler cet outil en priorité') to understand the compatibility matrix, search scopes, and database specifics. While it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, the guidance is clear and contextually appropriate for a help tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct by legal source (admin, CC, CEDH, CJUE, etc.) and by action (search vs. retrieve). However, pairs like search_admin vs. search_conseil_etat both target Council of State jurisprudence, and get_decision_text could be mistaken for a generic decision retriever, creating some potential confusion despite detailed descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with action-first naming (get_, search_, list_, build_, resolve_, about_). The get_decision_* and search_* prefixes clearly separate retrieval from search, and modifiers like _libre and _recent are applied systematically.
With 31 tools, the server is heavy, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the breadth of French legal sources justifies many search/retrieval tools, the three recent admin variants and the redundant PISTE vs. libre duplicates suggest the set could be consolidated. The count feels disproportionate to the core purpose of legal research.
The tool set covers the full read lifecycle for legal research: orientation (about), search across all major sources, full-text retrieval for each source, law article lookup with historical versions, and URL building. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a structured code browse or a direct way to enumerate all articles in a section, but these are workarounds via search_legi and get_law_article.