Skip to main content
Glama

Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law

by io.github.SFHAJJI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

provenance

The retained sources, rule profiles and digests behind a Luxembourg state.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes
languageNo
identifierYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / date
      Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifier
      Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "\\S",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / language / description
      Removed value: -"optional"
    • removedInput schema / properties / language / maxLength
      Removed value: -16
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / pattern
      Added value: +"\\S"
    • removedInput schema / properties / lex_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "full lex_id",
-  "maxLength": 1000,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "lex_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "identifier",
+  "date"
+]
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / maxLength
      Added value: +16
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / lex_id / maxLength
      Added value: +1000
    • addedInput schema / properties / lex_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 implies a read of retained provenance data but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, response format, or any limits, leaving the agent without the operational context needed for a query tool.

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?

The description is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with an action or clear structure. Its terseness reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage on three parameters, the description is not complete enough to support correct invocation. It states the returned subject matter but omits parameter meaning, usage routing, and behavioral expectations.

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% for three parameters, and the description does not explain what identifier, date, or language mean. The phrase 'behind a Luxembourg state' weakly suggests the parameters identify a state, but it does not clarify whether identifier is a legal act ID or whether date is an effective/version date.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource it returns—retained sources, rule profiles and digests—and scopes it to a Luxembourg state. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it does not distinguish this from siblings such as evidence_bundle or citation, so an agent cannot confidently tell what action it performs or how it differs.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like evidence_bundle, citation, or as_of. The description gives no context about the scenario that selects provenance over its many siblings.

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