Skip to main content
Glama

EUR-Lex

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Legislation

search_legislation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text search of EU legislation titles via the EUR-Lex SPARQL endpoint. Returns CELEX id, English title and document date. Use when the act is not in compliance_index, or to find related/amending acts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional: restrict to a legal act type.
limitNoMax results (default 10, max 25).
queryYesKeyword(s) that must appear in the English title, e.g. "cybersecurity certification".

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it queries a SPARQL endpoint and returns specific fields (CELEX id, English title, document date), which provides useful behavioral context beyond 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: first explains purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No wordiness, front-loaded with critical information.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is complete and actionable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not add meaningful information beyond the parameter descriptions already provided in the schema. It clarifies the overall purpose but not parameter-specific details.

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 performs full-text search of EU legislation titles via EUR-Lex SPARQL endpoint and returns specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling compliance_index by explicitly stating when to use this tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly provides usage context: 'Use when the act is not in compliance_index, or to find related/amending acts.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All EUR-Lex 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools appear to do nearly the same thing: ask_pipeworx, ask_ipeworx_beta (explicitly identical at the moment), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questionanswering in a very similar way. Even with long descriptions, the sheer number of overlapping query/research/analysis tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_comperitor_ai_presence, all polymarket_*) would make an agent uncertain which to call.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set uses snake_case everywhere but that is the only consistent part. There is a mess of verb_noun patterns, noun_verb patterns (cjeu_search vs search_legislation, cj_judgment vs get_document), bare noun phrases (entity_profile, compliance_index, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and verb phrases (ask_ipeworx, generate_elms_txt, resolve_entry). A user cannot predict whether the noun comes first, so naming is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is far over the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, and a large number of them (predictor markets ten, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, pipework meta-tools) are outside the EUR-Lex legal research domain. The total count suggests a bundled everything-server rather than a focused legal-research MCP. It is not extreme enough for a 1 because 39 is still within a region where a broader meta-pipework suite could plausibly exist — but it's still too many.

Completeness4/5

For the EUR-Lex domain, the legal tools are nearly complete: search_legislation + compliance_index locate acts, get_metadata/list_articles/get_article/get_document read them, and cjeu_search/cjeu_judgment cover case law. Missing links that would make it fully seamless are amendment tracking, cross-references and direct CELEX/EURL-Lex citation search integration, but all basic 'find and read an act or judgment' workflows are supported.

Resources