Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_cc

Read-only

Recherche dédiée au Conseil constitutionnel (7 112 décisions).

Quatrième pouvoir juridictionnel français aux côtés de la Cour de cassation,
du Conseil d'État et de la Cour de justice de la République. Contrôle la
constitutionnalité des lois (contrôle *a priori* via DC, *a posteriori* via
QPC) et les élections nationales.

Args:
    query: mots-clés (opérateurs FTS5)
    nature: filtre optionnel par type de décision :
        - "QPC" : Question Prioritaire de Constitutionnalité
          (contrôle a posteriori, saisine par justiciable via CE/Cass)
        - "DC"  : Décision sur conformité de loi ordinaire ou organique
          (contrôle a priori avant promulgation)
        - "L"   : Lois diverses, délégalisation
        - "AN"  : Élections législatives, inéligibilités
        - "SEN" : Élections sénatoriales
        - "PDR" : Élection présidentielle
        - "ORGA": Organisation (règlement intérieur, composition)
        - "REF" : Référendum
        - "ELEC": Autres élections
        - "I"   : Incompétence
        (si vide, toutes natures confondues)
    date_min, date_max: ISO YYYY-MM-DD
    limit: max 50 (défaut 20)
    offset: pagination

Returns:
    `{"total", "returned", "nature_filter", "decisions": [...]}`

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
natureNo
offsetNo
date_maxNo
date_minNo

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it covers the number of decisions, the nature filter options and their meanings, the use of FTS5 operators in query, and the return object structure. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but these are not critical for a read-only search.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. The contextual sentence about the court is useful but slightly extends beyond the core purpose, though it does not become wasteful.

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 tool with 6 parameters (1 required) and a read-only annotation, the description covers all parameter meanings, defaults, constraints (limit max 50), and the response structure. No significant gaps remain, making it fully self-contained.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: query keywords with FTS5, nature with an enumerated list of values, date range format, limit max/default, and offset for pagination. This transforms the schema from bare names to actionable parameter semantics.

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 'Recherche dédiée au Conseil constitutionnel (7 112 décisions)' as the first sentence, immediately identifying it as a search tool specific to French Constitutional Council decisions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the court and explaining its role, making the purpose 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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: for searching decisions of the Constitutional Council, including constitutional review and election disputes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the dedicated scope implied by the description and sibling tool names gives sufficient guidance.

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