Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_judiciaire

Read-only

Recherche dans la jurisprudence judiciaire via l'API officielle PISTE (authentification OAuth2 requise).

Périmètre : Cour de cassation, cours d'appel, tribunaux judiciaires,
tribunaux de commerce. À n'utiliser qu'en dernier recours ou pour des
décisions récentes absentes de la base libre DILA, compte tenu de
l'entrave technique imposée par la Cour de cassation.

Authentification (les identifiants PISTE ne transitent JAMAIS par la
conversation) :
1. `session_token` : jeton temporaire obtenu sur
   justicelibre.org/tutoriel-piste.html (procédé recommandé).
2. Auto-hébergement : variables d'environnement PISTE_CLIENT_ID et
   PISTE_CLIENT_SECRET définies côté serveur.

Args:
    query: mots-clés de recherche
    session_token: jeton justicelibre temporaire (obtenu via le
        formulaire du site)
    juridiction: filtre optionnel — "cc" (Cour de cassation), "ca"
        (cours d'appel), "tj" (tribunaux judiciaires), "tcom"
        (tribunaux de commerce). Vide = toutes juridictions.
    limit: nombre maximum de résultats (défaut 20, maximum 50)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
juridictionNo
session_tokenNo

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?

Although readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: OAuth2 authentication is required, credentials never pass through the conversation, and there is an external technical constraint ('entrave technique'). It also details two authentication paths, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 longer than average but well-structured with sections for scope, usage guidance, authentication, and parameters. Each sentence contributes necessary information, especially given the authentication complexity. Slight verbosity is justified, though it could be tightened.

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 presence of an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, usage conditions, authentication steps, parameter semantics, and even mentions alternatives. There are no significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the parameters. It provides meaningful semantic meaning for each argument: query (keywords), session_token (temporary token obtained via the site), juridiction (with specific code mappings), and limit (default 20, max 50). This fully compensates for 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 clearly states the tool performs a search in judicial case law (jurisprudence judiciaire) via the official PISTE API, with an explicit scope listing the covered courts. It also distinguishes itself from the free DILA base and from sibling tools like search_judiciaire_libre by emphasizing it is a last-resort option for recent decisions.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use only as a last resort or for recent decisions missing from the DILA free base. It also mentions the technical hurdles imposed by the Cour de cassation, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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