Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_conseil_etat

Read-only

Recherche sémantique ciblée sur la jurisprudence du Conseil d'État (base ArianeWeb, ~270 000 décisions).

Moteur exclusif disposant d'un véritable algorithme de pertinence
(Sinequa) avec extraction de contexte. À privilégier systématiquement
pour le droit public.

EXTRACTION DU TEXTE : les ids retournés (`/Ariane_Web/AW_DCE/|XXXXXX`)
sont DÉSORMAIS exploitables directement par `get_decision_text(decision_id=…)`
(récupération live via le plugin Sinequa).

⚠️ COUVERTURE : cet index ArianeWeb (Sinequa) couvre MAL les arrêts
anciens/fondateurs (avant ~1990). Si une recherche ici renvoie 0, NE PAS
conclure que l'arrêt est absent de JusticeLibre : le bulk JADE
(`search_admin`) couvre le CE depuis 1873 (Trompier-Gravier 1944, PGD,
etc. inclus). Et si tu connais déjà l'id Légifrance `CETATEXT…` d'un
arrêt, `get_decision_text("CETATEXT…")` le sort directement du bulk.

Consigne de recherche : limiter les requêtes à 2-5 mots-clés
distinctifs ; les requêtes en phrase complète retournent généralement
zéro résultat.

Args:
    query: mots-clés de recherche (ex : "référé liberté", "QPC 145")
    limit: nombre maximum de résultats (défaut 20)
    offset: décalage pour paginer (défaut 0). Réitérer avec offset=20,
        offset=40, etc. pour obtenir les pages suivantes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
offsetNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: the engine uses Sinequa with context extraction, IDs are now usable by get_decision_text, coverage limitations, and query behavior (full sentences return zero results). This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 relatively long but well-structured with bold text, emojis, and sections. Every sentence adds value (purpose, usage, caveats, parameters). It could be slightly more concise, but the detail is justified given the need to cover multiple important aspects.

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 3 parameters, an output schema (existence signaled by context), and many sibling tools, the description comprehensively covers purpose, usage context, coverage limitations, parameter semantics, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema means return value details are handled separately, so the description is complete for the agent's decision-making.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: query with examples, limit with default, offset with pagination instructions. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 'Recherche sémantique ciblée sur la jurisprudence du Conseil d’État' (semantic search on Conseil d'État case law), naming the database (ArianeWeb, ~270k decisions). It distinguishes from siblings by stating it should be systematically preferred for public law and by explicitly contrasting coverage with search_admin and get_decision_text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises when to use this tool ('À privilégier systématiquement pour le droit public') and when not to (for old decisions before ~1990, directing to search_admin). It also provides an alternative if the user already has a Légifrance ID, and gives search query constraints (2-5 keywords, avoid full sentences).

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