Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_judiciaire_libre

Read-only

Recherche plein texte dans la jurisprudence judiciaire, exécutée localement et affranchie de toute obligation d'authentification gouvernementale.

Exploite l'index FTS5 des archives publiques DILA enrichies par la
synchronisation quotidienne Judilibre (~1,3 M décisions : Cour de
cassation, 36 cours d'appel, tribunaux judiciaires, tribunaux de
commerce, Conseil constitutionnel). Scoring
BM25 disponible mais tri appliqué par ordre chronologique décroissant.

**Couverture connue** : la base contient un sous-ensemble des arrêts
publiés en open data (~86 000 arrêts CA depuis 2007, ~68 000 décisions
de tribunaux judiciaires et ~40 000 de tribunaux de commerce surtout
depuis 2023 via Judilibre). Tous les arrêts ne sont PAS dans la base ; un faux négatif
n'implique donc pas que l'arrêt n'existe pas. En cas de bredouille,
suggérer à l'utilisateur de chercher sur Légifrance ou via PISTE
(`search_judiciaire`).

**Recherche par numéro de RG** : pour les arrêts CA, utiliser le param
`numero_rg` (lookup direct, normalise les variantes 21/05835, 21-05835,
2105835). Pour les pourvois Cass, utiliser `query` avec le numéro
(ex: query="21-12.345").

⚠️ Les résultats ne contiennent qu'un SNIPPET tronqué (`snippet`), pas
le texte intégral. Pour lire une décision en entier, appeler
`get_decision_judiciaire_libre(decision_id=…)` avec l'id retourné (formats :
`JURITEXT*` Cass / cours d'appel historiques, `CONSTEXT*` Conseil
constitutionnel, id hexadécimal 24 caractères pour les décisions
synchronisées via Judilibre — TJ, tribunaux de commerce, flux récents).
Ne pas se fier au snippet seul pour conclure sur le contenu.

Args:
    query: mots-clés (ex : "licenciement abusif"). FTS5 supporte
        `"phrase exacte"`, `mot1 AND mot2`, `mot*` (préfixe). Optionnel
        si `numero_rg` est fourni.
    juridiction: filtre optionnel : "cassation" / "appel" / "tj" / "tcom" / "constit".
    numero_rg: numéro RG d'un arrêt CA (ex: "21/05835"). Lookup direct
        qui matche toutes les variantes typographiques.
    date_min: date min ISO (YYYY-MM-DD), optionnel
    date_max: date max ISO (YYYY-MM-DD), optionnel
    limit: nombre maximum de résultats (défaut 20, max 50)
    offset: décalage pour paginer (défaut 0). Si la réponse contient
        `truncated: true`, réitérer avec `next_offset` pour la suite.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo
offsetNo
date_maxNo
date_minNo
numero_rgNo
juridictionNo

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?

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It discloses that results contain only a truncated snippet (not full text), warns not to conclude based on snippets, explains the indexing source (FTS5 on DILA public archives updated daily via Judilibre), lists known coverage limitations (e.g., missing decisions, specific year ranges), and describes pagination behavior ('truncated: true' with 'next_offset'). It also details how to retrieve full decisions via 'get_decision_judiciaire_libre' with the returned id, providing complete behavioral context for a search tool.

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 comprehensive yet well-structured. It opens with a clear one-line purpose statement, then progressively adds detail: indexing source and coverage, search strategies, limitation warnings, parameter explanations. Each sentence serves a distinct informative purpose—no redundancy or filler. The parameter list is cleanly formatted, and critical caveats are highlighted with emoji markers for scannability.

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 (7 parameters, no required fields, large parameter space, FTS5 search engine, pagination, multiple result types), the description is remarkably complete. It addresses: search scope and limitations, parameter semantics, result behavior (pagination, snippets), error recovery suggestions (what to do when no results), and integration with sibling tools ('get_decision_judiciaire_libre'). The output schema exists but the description still usefully explains return values like 'snippet', 'truncated', and 'next_offset'. Nothing obvious 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (meaning the schema only provides parameter names and types), the description thoroughly documents every parameter. It explains: query supports FTS5 syntax (exact phrases, AND, prefix), juridiction lists valid values, numero_rg normalizes typographical variations, date_min/date_max expect ISO format, limit defaults to 20 with max 50, and offset paginates with next_offset. The description adds substantial meaning 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 'Recherche plein texte dans la jurisprudence judiciaire, exécutée localement et affranchie de toute obligation d'authentification gouvernementale,' clearly specifying the verb (full-text search), resource (French judicial case law), and a key differentiator (no government authentication required). It further distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_judiciaire' which requires government authentication, and provides scope details about coverage and document types.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for searching judicial case law without authentication. It also provides when-not-to-use guidance: if the search is fruitless, suggest using 'search_judiciaire' (PISTE) or Légifrance. Additionally, it specifies search strategies for different document types (e.g., using 'numero_rg' for CA cases, 'query' for Cassation appeals), directly helping the agent choose correct invocation paths.

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