Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_cedh

Read-only

Recherche textuelle dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme.

Exploitation de l'index localisé regroupant les ~76 000 documents
HUDOC francophones (arrêts, décisions, rapports de Chambre, Grande
Chambre, Comité). Libre d'accès.

Args:
    query: mots-clés (ex : "article 8 vie familiale", "garde à vue")
    limit: nombre maximum de résultats (défaut 20, max 50)
    offset: décalage pour paginer (défaut 0). Si la réponse contient
        `truncated: true`, réitérer avec `next_offset` pour la suite.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
offsetNo

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 pagination behavior (truncated/next_offset), dataset size, and access conditions (free access, local index). This provides actionable information for the agent to correctly handle large result sets.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by context about the index, and ending with a clear Args list. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: scope, parameters, pagination, and access. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining query keywords with examples, limit default/max, and offset's role in pagination, including the use of next_offset.

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 textual search in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, specifying the resource (~76,000 HUDOC French-language documents). The name and description distinguish it from sibling search tools targeting other jurisdictions (e.g., search_cc, search_cjue).

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 for when to use this tool (for ECHR case law) and gives example queries ('article 8 vie familiale', 'garde à vue'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, unlike the TDQS 4.3 example which names a specific alternative.

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