Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

get_decision_cedh

Read-only

Extraction du texte intégral d'une décision de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme sur la base de son identifiant système (itemid HUDOC).

Args:
    decision_id: itemid HUDOC (ex : "001-249914")

Returns:
    Décision avec `full_text`, ou dict d'erreur structuré
    `{error, error_category: "not_found"}` si l'itemid est inconnu.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
decision_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the read nature is covered. The description adds error return structure (full_text vs. error dict with not_found), which is helpful. However, it fails to mention the 'id' parameter present in the schema, leaving ambiguity about which parameter to use. This incomplete disclosure reduces transparency.

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 brief (two short paragraphs) and front-loaded with purpose. Args and Returns are separated. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet lists), but it is efficient for the content provided.

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?

Given the context (output schema present, annotations present, sibling list large), the description covers purpose and return format but lacks full parameter documentation (missing 'id' parameter) and no usage guidance relative to siblings. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains decision_id (format and example) but completely omits the 'id' parameter. For two parameters, only one is documented. This partially compensates but leaves the other parameter unexplained.

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 the tool extracts the full text of a European Court of Human Rights decision based on its system identifier (itemid HUDOC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other courts (e.g., get_cc_decision, get_cjue_decision) or search functions. The verb 'extraction' and the resource are specific.

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?

The description implies usage when you have an itemid HUDOC ID, but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this vs. alternatives like search_cedh for finding IDs. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is implicit only.

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