Skip to main content
Glama

Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law

by io.github.SFHAJJI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cited_by

The references, in any held Luxembourg state, whose target is exactly this work.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNo
limitNo
identifierYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / after
      Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "\\S",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifier
      Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "\\S",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Removed value: -"default 50"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Previous value: -100New value: +200
    • removedInput schema / properties / work
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "the law being cited, e.g. lu-legilux:loi-2020-06-04-a476",
-  "maxLength": 1000,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "work"
-]New value: +[
+  "identifier"
+]
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / work / maxLength
      Added value: +1000
    • addedInput schema / properties / work / minLength
      Added value: +1
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results span any held Luxembourg state, but omits whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, and any permission or rate-limit considerations.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted text and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but it is structurally efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description is not complete enough. An agent lacks parameter semantics, return shape, and usage context needed to invoke the tool confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The phrase 'this work' weakly implies what identifier means, but the after and limit parameters receive no explanation in either the schema or the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource and scope: references whose target is exactly this work, in any held Luxembourg state. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it lacks a verb and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like citation or relations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as citation or relations. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or selection criteria for an agent to follow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law 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