Skip to main content
Glama

Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law

by io.github.SFHAJJI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

coverage

What this mount holds and serves, named, and what it does not.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "\\S",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / publisher
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "optional publisher id",
-  "maxLength": 64,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / publisher / maxLength
      Added value: +64
    • addedInput schema / properties / publisher / minLength
      Added value: +1
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not state whether the call is read-only, what shape the answer takes, or whether it requires a mount context. The phrase 'what it does not' is the only behavioral detail — a negative-space claim — which is far from enough for a tool with an undocumented optional parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is one short sentence with no filler, so it is concise in the literal sense. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined front-loading; the most important information (what is returned, how to call it) is absent.

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?

For a zero-annotation tool with no output schema and an undisclosed optional parameter, the definition is far too thin. It needs to explain the return concept, the role of 'language', and how it differs from nearby coverage-oriented siblings like manifest or browse.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The single parameter 'language' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. Its meaning (output language? filtering by language? required format?) is entirely undefined, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description gestures at a concept — what a mount holds and does not — but never states a concrete verb or returnable resource. 'Coverage' plus this phrasing is only marginally more informative than the bare name, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like browse, search, or manifest.

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?

There is an implicit hint that this tool is about scope/boundaries rather than content retrieval, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the 23 siblings. An agent cannot reliably choose this over browse or search from the text.

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