Skip to main content
Glama

Lexiara

by org.lexiara

What a provision cites, and what changed it

provision_context
Read-onlyIdempotent

The cross-reference neighbourhood of a provision plus its amendment history. Use this when a provision's relevance is not on its face: a duty that says 'the information referred to in Article 6(1)' is silent about what that information now includes, and about which amending act put it there. Returns citations both ways and the amending acts marked on this provision and on the ones it cites. citedByArticle answers the inbound question at ARTICLE granularity — which provisions of other instruments name THIS article — split into eu and national by the citing instrument's jurisdiction, and distinct from citedBy, which is act-level and returns the same list on every provision of the act.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eIdYesProvision identifier, e.g. 'art_7__para_1'.
workYesELI of the instrument.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns citations both ways, distinguishes article-level from act-level citation results, explains the EU/national split, and discloses that derived-graph data requires an API key and consumes a monthly allowance. No contradiction 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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: the core function, the motivating use case, the citation-direction semantics, the granularity distinction, and the access constraint. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and avoids filler.

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 complex graph tool with no output schema, the description explains what will be returned, at what granularity, how to interpret citedBy vs citedByArticle, and what access restrictions apply. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description reinforces that work is an ELI and eId is a provision identifier, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource and function: the cross-reference neighbourhood of a provision plus its amendment history. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by detailing citedByArticle granularity and why it differs from act-level citedBy.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when a provision's relevance is not on its face' and gives a concrete example. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the full when/when-not guidance that would earn a 5.

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
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions carefully separate overlapping areas such as definition lookup, cross-references, and transposition links. A few citation/graph tools (related_works, work_mentions, find_national_implementations, provision_context) could be confused at a glance, but their granularity and direction are explicitly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a readable all-lowercase-snake_case style, but conventions are mixed: roughly half are imperative verb_object names (lookup_provision, search_legislation, list_topics) while the rest are bare noun-phrase view names (provision_context, recent_changes, work_mentions). The pattern is understandable but not uniform.

Tool Count4/5

At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct research query or data product. The count is justified by the breadth of legal-research operations rather than redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the domain thoroughly: search, provision lookup, definitions, multilingual terms, cross-references, amendment history, transposition links, topics, coverage, updates, and review workflows. The explicit read-only design means absent write operations are a deliberate boundary, not a gap.

Resources