Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

get_decision_text

Read-only

Extraction du texte intégral d'une décision relevant de l'ordre administratif (Conseil d'État, TA, CAA).

Identifiants acceptés :
- `DCE_XXX_YYYYMMDD` (CE), `DTA_XXX_YYYYMMDD` (TA),
  `DCAA_XXX_YYYYMMDD` (CAA) — extraction depuis le bulk JADE local.
- `CETATEXT…` (id Légifrance/CETA renvoyé par `search_admin`) — lookup
  direct dans le bulk JADE local, texte intégral inclus.
- `/Ariane_Web/AW_DCE/|XXXXXX` (ou abrégé `|XXXXXX`) — récupération EN
  DIRECT du texte intégral via le plugin Sinequa du Conseil d'État.
  Fonctionne pour toute décision ArianeWeb, y compris hors bulk JADE.

INCOMPATIBILITÉS MAJEURES :
- Identifiants JURITEXT — rediriger vers `get_decision_judiciaire_libre`
  ou `get_decision_judiciaire`.
- Identifiants CELEX `6XXXXCJXXXX` — rediriger vers `get_decision_cjue`.
- Identifiants HUDOC `001-XXXXXX` — rediriger vers `get_decision_cedh`.

Args:
    decision_id: identifiant de la décision (avec ou sans suffixe .xml)

Returns:
    Dict comportant les métadonnées complètes et `full_text` (texte
    intégral). Si la décision est introuvable, dict d'erreur structuré
    `{error, error_category: "not_found", retryable}` avec les tools
    alternatifs à essayer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
decision_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: it describes two data sources (bulk JADE local, direct Sinequa plugin), identifier parsing, and return format. No contradiction. The description carries the full burden and exceeds expectations.

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 sections for accepted identifiers, incompatibilities, and args. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly verbose, every section earns its place given the complexity of identifier formats. Could be tightened by merging the last two paragraphs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers tool purpose, identifier formats, data sources, error handling, and alternatives. With an output schema present, the explicit return format description is not strictly necessary but adds value. The main gap is the undocumented 'id' parameter, which reduces completeness for a tool with 2 parameters.

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 compensate. It documents the 'decision_id' parameter with format details, but the 'id' parameter (also in the schema) is completely unexplained. This partial coverage falls short of full compensation. The description adds value for one parameter but misses the other.

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's purpose: extracting full text of administrative decisions (Conseil d'État, TA, CAA). It lists accepted identifier formats and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying incompatible identifiers and redirecting to alternatives (e.g., get_decision_judiciaire, get_decision_cjue, get_decision_cedh). This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It lists accepted identifiers, major incompatibilities with redirects to other tools, and explains the error response format with retryable flags and alternative tools to try. This is comprehensive usage guidance.

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