Lex: Luxembourg Law MCP Server

timeline

Every publisher state a document has been in: timeline intervals, version keys, and explicit timeline_semantics. Legilux intervals describe applicability; EUR-Lex intervals describe official consolidated wording states, not entry into force.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`work`	Yes	Work-level lex_id (publisher:workkey), version-level lex_id (version segment ignored), or verbatim publisher identifier with publisher supplied. Unknown document -> call search first.
`limit`	No	max versions (default 100)
`offset`	No	pagination offset
`publisher`	No	publisher id; required when work is not publisher-qualified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedAug 11, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +200
```
addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
```
Added value: +100000
```
addedInput schema / properties / offset / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```

addedInput schema / properties / publisher

Added value: +{
+  "description": "publisher id; required when work is not publisher-qualified",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / work / description

Previous value: -"Work-level lex_id (publisher:workkey), version-level lex_id (version segment ignored), or verbatim publisher identifier. Unknown document -> call search first."New value: +"Work-level lex_id (publisher:workkey), version-level lex_id (version segment ignored), or verbatim publisher identifier with publisher supplied. Unknown document -> call search first."

addedInput schema / properties / work / maxLength
```
Added value: +1000
```
addedInput schema / properties / work / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

First observedAug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description takes on the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral nuance by distinguishing Legilux intervals (applicability) from EUR-Lex intervals (consolidated wording, not entry into force), which is non-obvious and essential for interpretation.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a crucial semantic clarification. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must explain return values and context. It lists key output components and a critical semantic caveat, but it does not describe interval structure, ordering, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving notable gaps for a nuanced legal-history tool.

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 provides exhaustive descriptions for all four parameters, including format details for 'work' and pagination for 'limit'/'offset'. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 surfaces every publisher state a document has been in, with timeline intervals, version keys, and timeline_semantics. It is specific and informative, though the verb is implicit and sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 the tool is used to retrieve a document's state history and provides important interval semantics, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like article_history or provenance.

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

All Lex: Luxembourg Law MCP Server tools Inspect

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

Need Help?