Recherche dans les délibérations de la CNIL.
Source : bulk CNIL (~27 000 délibérations). Utile pour le droit
des données personnelles, RGPD, traitements algorithmiques.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the read-only 'Recherche' action. The description adds the source bulk size (~27,000 deliberations), giving some context about the corpus, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination limits or result formatting. This is acceptable for a read-only search but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and supplementary context in the second. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (search with query/limit/offset) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it doesn't explain pagination behavior or any specifics about the return format, and the lack of parameter documentation leaves gaps, but not critical ones for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanation. The agent must infer that 'query' is a search term, and 'limit'/'offset' are pagination controls, but these are not stated. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches CNIL deliberations, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling search tools by explicitly targeting CNIL deliberations, a unique jurisdiction/topic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides useful context: 'Utile pour le droit des données personnelles, RGPD, traitements algorithmiques' indicates when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for the agent to choose this tool for CNIL-related searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.