Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

get_decision_cjue

Read-only

Extraction du texte intégral d'une décision de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne sur la base de son identifiant normalisé (CELEX).

Seuls les identifiants CELEX sont acceptés — un ECLI seul ne suffit
pas : retrouver d'abord le CELEX correspondant via `search_cjue`.

Args:
    decision_id: identifiant CELEX (ex : "62024CJ0072")

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
decision_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needed to add contextual behavior. It discloses that a decision with full_text is returned or a structured error dict with error category 'not_found' for unknown CELEX. This complements the annotation without contradicting it.

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 well-structured: purpose, constraint, alternative, then args and returns. It is concise with minimal redundancy. However, the 'Args:' section repeats information already in the schema, and the example could be integrated more compactly.

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?

The description provides the core usage context: input format, data source, return shape. The output schema exists, so detailed return specification is less necessary. However, failing to explain the 'id' parameter leaves a critical gap, making the description incomplete for a tool with two parameters and zero schema-level descriptions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only documents one of the two parameters (decision_id) with an example. The second parameter 'id' is completely unexplained, and its purpose or relationship to decision_id is unclear. This is a significant deficiency for a tool with two parameterized inputs.

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 verb ('Extraction') and resource ('texte intégral d'une décision de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne'), specifying the required identifier type (CELEX). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_cjue by explicitly limiting input to CELEX identifiers and directing users to search_cjue for ECLI-based lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use (when a CELEX identifier is already known), when-not-to-use (if only an ECLI is available), and the exact alternative (search_cjue to find the CELEX). It also states a prerequisite: the CELEX must first be retrieved via that sibling tool.

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