Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

get_law_versions

Read-only

Renvoie toutes les versions historiques d'un article de loi, du plus ancien au plus récent.

Utile pour construire une "timeline" de l'article et comprendre son
évolution (ex : un article modifié en 1964, 1994, 2016 aura 3-4 lignes
avec `date_debut`, `date_fin`, `etat`, `texte` distincts).

Args:
    code: code court (voir get_law_article — ~80 codes/textes, liste
        complète dans la resource `justicelibre://codes-supportes`)
    num: numéro de l'article

Returns:
    dict avec `code`, `code_long`, `num`, `count`, `versions`
    (liste ordonnée par `date_debut` ascendante).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numYes
codeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior: versions are returned ordered by date_debut ascending, with each version carrying date_debut, date_fin, etat, and texte. This gives the agent a clear model of what the operation returns and how it behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well structured into a one-line purpose, a practical use-case example, Args, and Returns. Each section earns its place, and the example adds clarity without unnecessary length.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers selection context, parameter semantics, code-source lookup, and result ordering. It also explicitly supports the historical-version use case, so a capable agent has what it needs to choose and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does that well enough: code is explained as a short code with a pointer to get_law_article and the ~80 supported codes, while num is described as the article number. The num explanation is terse, but both parameters are meaningfully clarified beyond the bare property names.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it returns all historical versions of a law article, ordered oldest to newest. The historical scope clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_law_article and other search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly frames the tool as useful for building an article timeline and understanding its evolution over time, with a concrete 1964/1994/2016 example. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name get_law_article as the alternative for the current version, so it lacks an explicit when-not statement.

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