Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_admin_recent

Read-only

Décisions admin récentes triées chronologiquement (API live).

Priorité au récent : tri par date de lecture décroissante, pas par
pertinence. Utile pour "actualité d'une juridiction" mais PAS pour
trouver la jurisprudence pertinente sur un sujet — pour cela, utiliser
`search_admin` (bulk JADE avec BM25 ranking).

Périmètre : CE + 9 CAA + 40 TA (incluant l'outre-mer), depuis ~2022.

Les identifiants générés (formats `DCE_*`, `DTA_*`, `DCAA_*`) sont
nativement compatibles avec l'outil `get_decision_text`.

Args:
    query: mots-clés de recherche
    juridiction: code de la juridiction. Exemples :
        - "CE" — Conseil d'État
        - "CE-CAA" — Conseil d'État + cours administratives d'appel
        - "TA69" — Tribunal administratif de Lyon
        - "TA75" — Tribunal administratif de Paris
        - "CAA69" — Cour administrative d'appel de Lyon
        Les codes "TA" ou "CAA" isolés retournent un résultat vide —
        un code spécifique est requis. Consulter `list_juridictions`
        pour la nomenclature complète.
    limit: nombre maximum de résultats (défaut 20)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
juridictionNoCE

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that results are sorted by read date descending, the API is live, the coverage is since ~2022, and generated IDs are compatible with get_decision_text. It also discloses the edge case where isolated 'TA' or 'CAA' codes return empty results. This significantly exceeds annotation-only context.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured with a bold summary, usage guidance, scope, compatibility note, and an Args section. Some redundancy exists between the opening line and the explanation of date sorting, but overall every section earns its place and the structured format improves scannability.

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?

The tool has three parameters, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation. The description fully covers all parameters, provides explicit use cases and exclusions, describes the scope and sorting behavior, and includes a compatibility note with get_decision_text. With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it provides comprehensive context to guide correct usage.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema provides only names/types/defaults with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the query semantics, providing detailed juridiction code examples (CE, CE-CAA, TA69, TA75, CAA69), noting the empty-result edge case, and clarifying the default for limit. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches recent administrative decisions sorted chronologically via a live API. It explicitly distinguishes it from search_admin by noting the focus on 'actualité' rather than relevance, and specifies the scope and ID formats. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states when to use the tool (for recent decisions of a jurisdiction) and when not (for finding relevant jurisprudence), naming search_admin as the alternative. It also provides detailed examples for the juridiction parameter and warns about empty results for isolated TA/CAA codes, with a pointer to list_juridictions for full nomenclature.

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