Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_admin_recent_all_caa

Read-only

Requête simultanée de l'ensemble des 9 Cours Administratives d'Appel.

Fusion et tri chronologique des résultats par date de lecture.

Args:
    query: mots-clés de recherche
    limit_per_court: résultats par cour (défaut 5, soit jusqu'à 45
        résultats au total)
    total_limit: plafond global après fusion (0 = aucun plafond).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
total_limitNo
limit_per_courtNo

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?

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: simultaneous querying, merging, chronological sorting by reading date, and limit behavior (per-court default 5, total limit cap). No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is appropriately sized, with a clear two-sentence overview followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool's core behavior and parameters; an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is complete for a search tool, though it lacks explicit notes on edge cases or prerequisites beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains all three parameters (query, limit_per_court, total_limit) with meaningful context, including defaults and the meaning of total_limit=0, going well beyond the bare 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 performs a simultaneous query of all 9 Cours Administratives d'Appel, with fusion and chronological sorting. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like search_admin_recent and search_admin_recent_all_ta.

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 clearly conveys the context: use this tool to search across all 9 CAA simultaneously. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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