Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_annuaire

Read-only

Recherche dans l'annuaire agrégé des adresses électroniques publiques des juridictions et administrations françaises.

Agrège 3 sources hébergées sur justicelibre.org (~75 000 adresses
fonctionnelles publiques, sous Licence Ouverte 2.0) :
  - dump quotidien DILA (services locaux : juridictions, mairies, sous-préf, etc.)
  - API `api-lannuaire.service-public.fr` (administrations centrales)
  - annuaire CADA (PRADA - personnes responsables L. 330-1 CRPA)
  - PDFs gouvernementaux scrapés (adresses inédites : bureaux internes,
    cabinets, écoles, DASEN, etc. absents des annuaires officiels)

Recherche : substring case-insensitive sur mail, organisme et service.
Cette version alpha ne fait pas de BM25 : classement par pertinence
simple (match mail > organisme > service).

Args:
    query: mots-clés (ex : "mairie strasbourg", "dsden nord", "dacs-c3",
           "greffe caa douai", "prada culture")
    category: filtre catégorie (ex : "mairie", "bav", "ecole", "cour_appel",
           "dacs", "prada", "administration_centrale")
    source: filtre origine ("dila", "api", "prada", "pdf", "manuel")
    limit: nombre maximum de résultats (défaut 20, max 200)

Returns:
    dict avec `total` (matches totaux), `returned`, `results` (liste de
    dicts {mail, organisme, service, categorie, source, tel, site,
    adresse, date_source, url_page}). Les entrées issues de PDF scrapés
    (`source: "pdf"`) portent en plus la traçabilité complète :
    `role`, `source_url` (document officiel d'origine), `source_label`,
    `source_page` (page du PDF), `preuve_url` (copie archivée sur
    justicelibre.org/preuves/ — à citer si l'original a disparu).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
sourceNo
categoryNo

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the aggregation of multiple data sources, the alpha status with no BM25 ranking, the simple relevance ordering (mail > organisme > service), and the full traceability fields for PDF-sourced entries. It even mentions licensing and the need to cite archived copies if originals disappear. This is exemplary transparency with no contradictions.

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 with a one-line purpose, a bulleted list of sources, search behavior, parameter details, and return format. It is dense with no filler, and the sections are clearly separated. The minor '3 vs 4 sources' inconsistency does not harm conciseness.

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 everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, data sources, search semantics, all parameters, and the complete return structure, including special fields for scraped PDF entries. It also notes the alpha status and ranking limitation. No significant gaps remain for this complexity level.

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%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section that explains each parameter with concrete examples and constraints, including default and max for limit, allowed category and source values, and keyword examples for query. This far exceeds what the schema provides.

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: 'Recherche dans l'annuaire agrégé des adresses électroniques publiques des juridictions et administrations françaises.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling legal-document search tools by focusing on public email addresses. The only minor flaw is the '3 sources' label followed by 4 bullets, but this does not obscure the purpose.

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 provides clear context about the tool's domain and search behavior, such as 'Recherche : substring case-insensitive sur mail, organisme et service' and practical query examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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