Skip to main content
Glama

Search CJEU/GC Case Law

eurlex_get_cases
Read-only

Search CJEU and General Court case law — judgments, orders, and Advocate General opinions — by case number, court, case type, keyword, and date range. By default only these primary records are returned; derivative judicial information notices, case abstracts, summaries, and corrigenda are excluded so distinct cases fill the page (set include_derivative to include them). Keyword matches English case titles (which carry party names) and CELEX strings; there is no full-text body search. Returns each case with its court, date, and type, plus — parsed from the title where present — the parties, subject matter, and case reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
courtNoCourt filter: CJEU = Court of Justice of the EU, GC = General Court. Omit to search both.
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (1–100). Defaults to 20.
offsetNoPagination offset — number of results to skip. Defaults to 0.
date_toNoEnd of date range in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). Leave blank or omit for no upper bound.
keywordNoKeyword to match against case titles and CELEX strings.
case_typeNoCase type: judgment, order (procedural decision), or ag_opinion (Advocate General opinion). Omit to search all.
date_fromNoStart of date range in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). Leave blank or omit for no lower bound.
case_numberNoCase number in standard format: C-{num}/{year} for CJEU or T-{num}/{year} for General Court (e.g. C-131/12).
include_derivativeNoInclude derivative sector-6 records — judicial information notices, case abstracts, case summaries, and corrigenda — alongside primary judgments, orders, and AG opinions. Default false: these are excluded so distinct primary cases fill the page. Ignored when case_type is set (that path already returns a single primary type).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capNoThe limit that was applied to this page.
casesNoMatching case law records ordered by date descending.
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
shownNoNumber of cases returned in this page.
totalNoNumber of cases returned in this page (not a corpus-wide count).
offsetNoPagination offset used for this response.
truncatedNoTrue when the returned page was capped at the limit and more cases may exist.
query_echoNoEcho of filters applied to this search. Useful for diagnosing empty results.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description transparently discloses the default behavior (excluding derivative records) and the scope of keyword matching (no full-text search). It also describes the return structure. Since annotations already indicate read-only and open-world, no side effects are expected, and the description adds useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 description is a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, behavior, and output, but it is somewhat dense and could benefit from bullet points for readability. It is not overly verbose and stays focused on essential facts.

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?

Given that the schema fully documents all parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It adds valuable context about the default derivative exclusion, keyword matching scope, and the parsed fields in results, ensuring an agent has all necessary information to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 9 parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add significant new information about parameters beyond reinforcing what is in the schema, such as the include_derivative flag's effect. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching CJEU and General Court case law with specific filters (case number, court, case type, keyword, date range). It is specific and distinguishes it from other sibling tools by focusing on case law, not documents 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the tool's behavior (e.g., default exclusion of derivative records, keyword matching only on titles and CELEX strings) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of siblings like eurlex_search_documents or eurlex_lookup_celex. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between similar search tools.

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

Try in Browser

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.