Skip to main content
Glama

Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law

by io.github.SFHAJJI

coverage

What we hold and what we lack, tier by tier: counts, date ranges, history_begins, known gaps. This tool exists to say what we do NOT have.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
publisherNooptional publisher id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 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
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns coverage counts, date ranges, history_begins, and gaps, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the purpose and key outputs. No wasted words, making it highly concise.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately covers the main return fields and purpose. However, terms like 'tier by tier' and 'history_begins' are left undefined, which could create ambiguity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema has 100% coverage for the optional publisher parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the publisher parameter or add extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool provides coverage information about what is held and lacking, with counts, date ranges, history_begins, and known gaps. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on coverage, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when needing to know data coverage or gaps, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but timeline and article_history both cover historical versions, and as_of and in_force_on both relate to state on a date. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve overlap, so confusion is limited.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase with underscores, but they mix noun forms (coverage, provenance), verb forms (search, diff), and prepositional phrases (as_of, in_force_on, changes_in_period). This is readable but lacks a consistent pattern like verb_noun.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized legal research server. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of temporal legal queries, and none feel redundant or superfluous.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers search, retrieval, history, citations, coverage gaps, and provenance. It supports both document-level and corpus-level temporal analysis, making it comprehensive for the stated domain of Luxembourg and EU law research.

Resources