Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

get_decision_judiciaire

Read-only

Extraction du texte intégral d'une décision judiciaire via l'API restreinte PISTE (authentification OAuth2 requise).

À substituer systématiquement par `get_decision_judiciaire_libre`
lorsque la décision figure dans les archives ouvertes de la DILA.

Outil formellement inopérant pour les décisions relevant de l'ordre
administratif (formats `DCE_*`, `DTA_*`, `DCAA_*`, `/Ariane_Web/...`).

Authentification (les identifiants PISTE ne transitent JAMAIS par la
conversation) : `session_token` obtenu sur
justicelibre.org/tutoriel-piste.html, ou variables d'environnement
PISTE_CLIENT_ID / PISTE_CLIENT_SECRET côté serveur (auto-hébergement).

Args:
    decision_id: identifiant Judilibre de la décision
    session_token: jeton justicelibre temporaire (recommandé)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
decision_idNo
session_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the need for OAuth2 authentication and notes that credentials must never transit through the conversation, adding behavioral context beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation. It also states the tool's inoperability for certain decision formats. Minor deduction as it does not describe any other traits like rate limits or error handling, but the annotation already covers safety.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose, usage notes, and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses bullet-like structure for constraints. Slight wordiness in the authentication section, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no required ones, no enums, with output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, alternatives, exclusions, authentication, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. No gaps remain for an agent to misinvoke the tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% (no schema descriptions), so the description must compensate. The description explains the `decision_id` as a Judilibre identifier and `session_token` as a temporary token, adding meaning beyond the schema's empty defaults. However, `id` (a third parameter) is not explained in the description, leaving a semantic gap. Baseline 3 with moderate compensation.

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 it extracts the full text of a judicial decision via the restricted PISTE API, specifying the exact resource ('décision judiciaire') and the action ('extraction du texte intégral'). It differentiates from the sibling tool `get_decision_judiciaire_libre` by clarifying that the latter should be used for open-access DILA decisions.

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 guidance: it should be substituted by `get_decision_judiciaire_libre` when the decision is in DILA open archives, and it is explicitly inoperative for administrative court decisions (formats DCE_*, DTA_*, etc.). It also details authentication prerequisites and alternatives, giving clear context for use.

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