Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

get_decision_judiciaire_libre

Read-only

Extraction du texte intégral d'une décision judiciaire depuis l'index indépendant (sans authentification).

Accepte exclusivement les identifiants judiciaires libres (formats
`JURITEXT*`, `CONSTEXT*`, `JURI*`), tels que retournés par
`search_judiciaire_libre` (exemples : `"JURITEXT000042579700"`,
`"CONSTEXT000049574021"`).

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

Args:
    decision_id: identifiant JURITEXT/JURI/CONSTEXT de la décision

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by stating no authentication needed and specifying accepted ID formats. It does not cover error behavior or what happens on invalid IDs, but the output schema exists to describe return values, making this a minor gap. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by constraints and an explicit exclusion. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds clarity. No wasted words, though the missing parameter documentation reduces efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, many siblings, output schema present), the description covers most key aspects: purpose, ID formats, exclusion. However, it fails to explain the 'id' parameter, which is a significant gap. The output schema likely covers return values, so that is acceptable.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only explains the 'decision_id' parameter with format examples. The 'id' parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent uncertain about its purpose or whether it is an alias. Given the low schema coverage, the description should clarify both parameters but fails to do so.

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 full text of a judicial decision from an independent index without authentication. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is inoperative for administrative decisions and only works with specific ID formats (JURITEXT*, CONSTEXT*, JURI*), which differentiates it from get_admin_decision, get_ce_decision, etc.

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 accepts only judicial free IDs returned by search_judiciaire_libre. It also gives a strong when-not-to-use statement: it is formally inoperative for administrative decisions. This helps the agent select the correct tool among many siblings without naming alternatives explicitly.

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