Skip to main content
Glama

eur-lex-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Browse EuroVoc Subjects

eurlex_browse_subjects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the EuroVoc thesaurus, resolving a keyword into concept URIs usable in the eurovoc_concept subject filter of eurlex_search_documents. Returns each concept URI, its preferred label in the requested language, code, and broader (parent) label, ordered alphabetically by label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of EuroVoc concepts to return (1–50). Defaults to 20.
offsetNoPagination offset — number of concepts to skip. Defaults to 0.
keywordYesSearch term to match against EuroVoc concept labels (e.g. "privacy", "agriculture", "trade").
languageNoLanguage code for concept labels (e.g. "en", "fr", "de"). Case-insensitive — "EN" and "en" behave identically. Defaults to English.en

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capNoThe limit that was applied to this response.
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
shownNoNumber of concepts returned in this response.
totalNoNumber of concepts returned in this response.
offsetNoPagination offset used for this response.
conceptsNoMatching EuroVoc concepts ordered alphabetically by label.
truncatedNoTrue when the returned list was capped at the limit and more concepts may exist.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds value by specifying the returned fields (URI, label, code, broader label) and the alphabetical ordering, which are not in the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler; the purpose and output are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only browse tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, output details, and usage context. An agent receives everything needed to invoke it correctly, including how the results integrate with the search tool. No significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds a small amount of context (e.g., 'resolving a keyword' clarifies the keyword's purpose, and 'usable in filter' suggests how the output is consumed), but does not meaningfully enrich individual parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('EuroVoc thesaurus'), and the intended use (resolving keywords to concept URIs for the eurovoc_concept filter). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools by explaining the output's role in eurlex_search_documents. No ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly ties the output to the eurovoc_concept filter of eurlex_search_documents, implying this is the tool to use when you need subject concepts for a search filter. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the use case is clear enough for an agent. It stops short of naming sibling tools or conditions, but provides sufficient context.

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

All eur-lex-mcp-server 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: subject browsing, case search, document retrieval, relation traversal, identifier resolution, raw SPARQL, and legislation search. The few potentially similar tools (search_documents vs get_cases) are clearly separated by corpus and description.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent eurlex_verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case, such as eurlex_get_document, eurlex_search_documents, and eurlex_lookup_celex. Verbs vary but the pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for an EU legal research server covering search, retrieval, relationship traversal, and identifier resolution. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or excessive.

Completeness4/5

The core research workflow is covered: browse subjects, search legislation, search cases, fetch documents, resolve identifiers, and traverse relations. Minor gaps exist such as no full-text body search and no explicit case-law full-text retrieval, but the raw SPARQL escape hatch partially mitigates these.

Resources