Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_jorf

Read-only

Recherche dans le Journal officiel (JORF post-1990).

Source : bulk JORF DILA (1,1 Go). Contient les textes publiés au JO
non codifiés : lois, décrets, arrêtés, circulaires, ordonnances.

Args:
    query: mots-clés FTS5
    nature: filtre optionnel ("LOI", "DECRET", "ARRETE", "CIRCULAIRE"...)
    date_min/date_max: fourchette de publication (ISO)
    limit: max 50

Returns:
    {"total", "returned", "textes": [...]}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
natureNo
offsetNo
date_maxNo
date_minNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: source (bulk JORF DILA, 1.1 GB), content type (non-codified), and a hard limit on results ('limit: max 50'). This enriches understanding beyond the annotation alone.

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 with an Args list and Returns line. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is easy to scan and understand.

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?

The description covers purpose, source, content, all key parameters, and the return structure. Given that an output schema exists, the explicit 'Returns' line is a bonus. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains query (FTS5 keywords), nature (with examples), date_min/date_max (ISO), and limit (max 50). Offset is not mentioned, but it is a common pagination parameter and has a default, so the description compensates well for most parameters.

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's function: 'Recherche dans le Journal officiel (JORF post-1990)'. It specifies the resource (JORF), the action (search), and the scope (post-1990) while listing content types (lois, décrets, arrêtés, circulaires, ordonnances). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_legi or search_admin.

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 on what the tool searches (non-codified JORF texts) and the available filters (nature, date range). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough to guide 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