Skip to main content
Glama

Lexiara

by org.lexiara
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Article-level national implementations

find_national_implementations
Read-onlyIdempotent

National provisions implementing one EU provision, with method and confidence per link. DERIVED data, not published by any authority: treat links not marked method='human' as leads to verify, and say so when citing. Check evidenceStatus: a current national consolidated reading aid may be informative rather than authoritative, and older links may be stale.

Lexiara Nexus data requires an API key on a signed-in account. The free plan carries a monthly Nexus allowance; the legislative text itself is always free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eIdYesProvision identifier: 'sec_4' (section 4), 'art_2__para_1' (article 2(1)), 'sch_9' (Schedule 9). Use search or history endpoints to discover eIds.
workYesELI of the EU instrument, e.g. the VAT Directive.
jurisdictionNoISO country filter, e.g. 'UK', 'FR', 'EU'.
minConfidenceNoDrop links below this confidence (0-1).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The JSON response from the corresponding Lexiara API route.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context beyond them: the data is DERIVED and not authority-published, non-'human' links need verification, evidenceStatus can be informative-not-authoritative or stale, and an API key with a monthly allowance is required. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by interpretation caveats. The auth block is somewhat boilerplate but still earns its place as a required precondition. Slightly long but well-structured overall.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is a filtered lookup with an output schema, so return values need not be restated. The description covers derivation caveats, staleness, and auth requirements. It leaves out any mention of how results are ordered or limited, which keeps it from a 5.

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 already documents all four parameters (eId format examples, work ELI, jurisdiction ISO, minConfidence range). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource: national provisions implementing one EU provision, returned with method and confidence per link. It is clearly distinguishable in concept from sibling provision tools. However, it never names an alternative sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives interpretation rules (treat non-human links as leads to verify, check evidenceStatus) but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternatives such as lookup_provision or provisions_by_concept, which appear in the sibling list. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

All Lexiara 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