Skip to main content
Glama

justicelibre

by io.github.Dahliyaal

search_kali

Read-only

Recherche dans les conventions collectives et accords de branche (KALI).

Source : bulk KALI DILA (745 Mo). Couvre les conventions collectives
nationales, accords de branche, avenants, identifiés par leur IDCC.

Args:
    query: mots-clés
    idcc: filtre optionnel par IDCC (4 chiffres, ex "1486" pour bureaux
          d'études techniques)
    limit: max 50

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idccNo
limitNo
queryYes
offsetNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, and the description adds valuable context about the data source size, coverage, and IDCC identification. This goes beyond the annotation's safety hint, though it doesn't detail result ordering or pagination behavior.

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 compact and well-organized, with a clear purpose first, then source context, then parameter guidance. Every sentence is informative, no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, source, relevant parameters, and includes limit constraints. It lacks explicit mention of offset and doesn't differentiate from siblings beyond domain, but overall is sufficiently complete for a search tool with an output schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining query, idcc (with a concrete example), and limit (max 50). It omits offset, a minor gap, but otherwise adds meaningful semantic detail beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches collective agreements (KALI), specifying the resource type, source (bulk KALI DILA), and coverage. The verb 'Recherche' and the specific domain distinguish it from sibling search tools.

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 is searched (national collective agreements, branch agreements, riders, identified by IDCC), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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