Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

build_source_url

Read-only

Construit l'URL canonique d'un document à partir de son identifiant.

Utile pour vérifier les sources à la main sur le site officiel (Légifrance,
Conseil constitutionnel, EUR-Lex, HUDOC, etc.) ou pour inclure un lien
cliquable dans un courrier.

Identifiants reconnus :
- `LEGIARTI*` → Légifrance article (passer `legitext` du texte parent
  pour distinguer code (/codes/) vs loi non codifiée (/loda/)
- `LEGITEXT*` / `JORFTEXT*` → texte entier Légifrance
- `JURITEXT*` / `CONSTEXT*` / `CETATEXT*` → décisions Légifrance
- CELEX (`6XXXXCJXXXX`) → EUR-Lex (CJUE)
- `ECLI:*` → EUR-Lex deeplink
- itemid HUDOC (`001-XXXXXX`) → Cour EDH
- ArianeWeb (`/Ariane_Web/AW_DCE/|XXXXXX`) → conseil-etat.fr

Args:
    identifier: l'ID à convertir
    legitext: (optionnel) LEGITEXT du texte parent si `identifier` est un
        LEGIARTI — améliore la précision de l'URL (codes/ vs loda/)
    date: (optionnel, YYYY-MM-DD) — appendé à l'URL Légifrance pour pointer
        vers la version de l'article en vigueur à cette date
        (ex: `/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI.../2023-01-01`). Indispensable pour
        vérifier l'état du droit à une date historique, sinon Légifrance
        affiche la version courante même si l'article a été abrogé depuis.

Returns:
    `{"id", "source_url"}` ou `{"error"}` si format non reconnu.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo
legitextNo
identifierYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The tool is annotated readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it lists recognized identifier patterns, explains the effect of the optional legitext and date parameters (e.g., date appends a suffix to point to historical versions), and specifies that unrecognized formats yield an {'error'} return. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured: a clear opening purpose, a 'Utile pour' usage line, a bulleted list of recognized identifiers, and a structured Args section. Every sentence contributes necessary detail for a non-trivial mapping tool, though it could be tightened slightly without loss of clarity.

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?

The tool has a complex mapping table across multiple legal databases, and the description covers all critical aspects: identifier formats, parameter semantics, return shape, and error behavior. The highlighted edge case about date being essential for historical versions shows thoughtful completeness. The output schema is present, so return details are redundant, but the description still mentions it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears the full burden of parameter documentation. It explains all three parameters: identifier (the ID to convert), legitext (optional parent LEGITEXT for LEGIARTI to distinguish codes vs non-codified laws), and date (optional YYYY-MM-DD to target a historical version). Each is described with format and purpose beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Construit l'URL canonique d'un document à partir de son identifiant.' This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling search/get decision tools, which retrieve data rather than construct source URLs.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Utile pour vérifier les sources à la main sur le site officiel ... ou pour inclure un lien cliquable dans un courrier.' It also details recognized identifier formats, giving the agent a checklist of supported inputs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the use cases are clear enough.

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

All justicelibre toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources