Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_decisions_citing

Read-only

Cherche les décisions qui citent EXPLICITEMENT un article de loi donné.

Exploite l'index FTS5 sur les sources jurisprudence disponibles pour
matcher les formulations courantes de citation (`"article 1382 du code
civil"`, `"art. L. 1152-1 du Code du travail"`, etc.). Cross-référencement
inverse : partant d'un article, on trouve la jurisprudence pertinente.

**LIMITATION CONNUE** : ce tool trouve UNIQUEMENT les citations explicites
du numéro d'article. Il ne capte PAS :
- les références indirectes ("conformément aux dispositions du Code civil
  relatives à la responsabilité délictuelle…")
- les renvois à une section entière sans numéro précis
- les citations du code par abréviation seule sans article ("en vertu du CT")
Pour une recherche conceptuelle plus large, préférer `search_all` avec
l'expansion thésaurus (ex: "harcèlement" → inclut "intimidation" etc.).

Args:
    code: code court de l'article (ex : "CT", "CC")
    num: numéro de l'article (ex : "L1152-1", "1240")
    sources: liste optionnelle de sources à interroger parmi
             ["dila", "jade", "cedh", "cjue"]. Par défaut : toutes.
    limit: nombre de décisions par source (défaut 20, max 50)

Returns:
    dict `{"code", "num", "total", "per_source": {source: count},
    "decisions": [{source, id, juridiction, date, title, extract}]}`.
    Si une source est en panne, elle est absente de `per_source` et
    détaillée dans `source_errors` (résultats alors incomplets).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numYes
codeYes
limitNo
sourcesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses concrete behavior: it exploits FTS5, matches common citation formulations, and explains failure behavior (source outages are absent from per_source and listed in source_errors). It also documents what the tool does NOT capture, which is critical for managing expectations.

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: a clear opening purpose, a bolded limitation section, organized Args, and a Returns dictionary. It is longer than average but every part provides necessary operational detail, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 complexity, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, return format, limits, and failure modes. The output schema is indicated as present, and the Returns section in the description nicely complements it. No critical information is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: code with examples ('CT', 'CC'), num with examples ('L1152-1', '1240'), sources with allowed values and default, and limit with default and maximum. This is far beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Cherche les décisions qui citent EXPLICITEMENT un article de loi donné.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the inverse cross-referencing approach and explicitly contrasting with search_all for conceptual searches.

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 tool states when to use it (explicit citation lookup) and when not to use it, directing users to search_all with thesaurus expansion for conceptual queries. It also documents the known limitation, giving clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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