Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_decisions_citing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Court decisions that EXPLICITLY cite an article ("article 1240 du code civil", "art. L. 1152-1 du code du travail"). Does not find indirect references or citations without an article number: searching by concept is for search.

Example: search_decisions_citing(code="CC", num="1240")

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numYesarticle number (e.g. "L1152-1", "1240")
codeYesas in get_law_article (abbreviation, name or LEGITEXT)
limitNonumber of decisions per source (default 20, max 50)
sourcesNooptional list of sources to query among ["dila", "jade", "cedh", "cjue"]. Default: all.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"comme get_law_article (sigle, nom ou LEGITEXT)"New value: +"as in get_law_article (abbreviation, name or LEGITEXT)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"nombre de décisions par source (défaut 20, max 50)"New value: +"number of decisions per source (default 20, max 50)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / num / description
      Previous value: -"numéro de l'article (ex : \"L1152-1\", \"1240\")"New value: +"article number (e.g. \"L1152-1\", \"1240\")"
    • changedInput schema / properties / sources / description
      Previous value: -"liste optionnelle de sources à interroger parmi [\"dila\", \"jade\", \"cedh\", \"cjue\"]. Par défaut : toutes."New value: +"optional list of sources to query among [\"dila\", \"jade\", \"cedh\", \"cjue\"]. Default: all."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"code court de l'article (ex : \"CT\", \"CC\")"New value: +"comme get_law_article (sigle, nom ou LEGITEXT)"
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Added value: +"code court de l'article (ex : \"CT\", \"CC\")"
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"nombre de décisions par source (défaut 20, max 50)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / num / description
      Added value: +"numéro de l'article (ex : \"L1152-1\", \"1240\")"
    • addedInput schema / properties / sources / description
      Added value: +"liste optionnelle de sources à interroger parmi [\"dila\", \"jade\", \"cedh\", \"cjue\"]. Par défaut : toutes."
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the match is restricted to explicit citations with a resolvable article number, not conceptual relevance.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the exclusion, then a usage example in three tight sentences with zero filler. Well structured and immediately actionable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values or the limit/sources behavior documented in the schema. It is complete for correct invocation, missing only cross-references to other sibling search tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with examples. The inline example (code="CC", num="1240") adds a marginal hint about abbreviation format, but parameter meaning is largely carried by the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns court decisions that EXPLICITLY cite a given article. It implicitly distinguishes itself from `search` by naming that sibling as the concept-based alternative, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly states the positive case (explicit citations with an article number) and the negative case (indirect references or citations lacking an article number), routing the latter to `search`. It does not mention other sibling search tools (e.g. search_case_law), but the core when/when-not routing is present.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources