Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_admin_recent_all_ta

Read-only

Requête simultanée de l'ensemble des 40 Tribunaux Administratifs.

Fusionne et trie chronologiquement (date de lecture décroissante) les
résultats issus du territoire national. Pertinent pour cartographier
rapidement les éventuelles divergences d'appréciation territoriale sur
une même question de droit.

Args:
    query: mots-clés de recherche
    limit_per_court: nombre de résultats par tribunal (défaut 5, soit
        jusqu'à 200 résultats totaux avant application de `total_limit`)
    total_limit: plafond global après fusion (défaut 60 ; 0 = aucun
        plafond). Si positif, tronque la liste fusionnée aux N entrées
        les plus récentes.

Returns:
    Dict comportant `per_court_totals` (nombre de hits par TA),
    `decisions` (liste fusionnée triée chronologiquement) et les
    éventuelles `errors`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
total_limitNo
limit_per_courtNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explains behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it reveals that results are merged and sorted by decreasing date, explains the effect of total_limit (truncation to N most recent entries), and states that the return dict includes per_court_totals, decisions, and errors. This provides substantial context for expected behavior without contradicting 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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a fusion/sorting explanation, a use-case statement, and clearly separated Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes new information with no fluff, making it appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 description covers the tool's complete behavior: scope (all 40 TAs), sorting, parameter semantics, limit interactions, and return structure. The mention of 'eventuelles errors' addresses error handling. Despite having an output schema, the description adds enough context to fully understand the tool's operation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description dedicates an Args section to fully explain query, limit_per_court (default 5, up to 200 results before total_limit), and total_limit (default 60, 0 = no cap). This adds critical meaning that the schema's bare titles lack.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Requête simultanée de l'ensemble des 40 Tribunaux Administratifs' (simultaneous query of all 40 administrative tribunals), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_admin_recent_all_caa. It also explains the fusion and chronological sorting, making its function unambiguous.

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 states a clear intended use case: 'Pertinent pour cartographier rapidement les éventuelles divergences d'appréciation territoriale sur une même question de droit' (useful for quickly mapping potential territorial divergences in legal interpretation). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when to use this tool over general search_admin.

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