Skip to main content
Glama

Lexiara

by org.lexiara
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

The same defined term in the act's other authentic languages

term_languages
Read-onlyIdempotent

How an act words one of its defined terms in each language version held. NOT a translation: an EU instrument is equally authentic in all 24 official languages (Regulation No 1/1958, article 4), so each wording is the law in that language. Use it to answer 'what do the German and French texts call this?' — e.g. 'commercial guarantee of durability' is 'gewerbliche Haltbarkeitsgarantie' and 'garantie commerciale de durabilité'.

The term may be given in ANY language held, so the German words find the English definition just as well as the other way round.

SCOPE: this is the EU act's own wording per language. It is NOT how a Member State's transposing legislation words it — a national implementation may lawfully choose different wording, and reaching it means following a transposition link that carries a method and a confidence (find_national_implementations). Nothing here is inferred.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termYesThe phrase, in any language held. Matched exactly (case-insensitive).
workNoScope to one instrument (ELI or official number).
limitNoMaximum terms, default 8.
jurisdictionNoISO country filter, e.g. 'UK', 'FR', 'EU'.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description rightly doesn't repeat those. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: EU language versions are equally authentic under Regulation No 1/1958, the term may be entered in any language, and results are direct wording, not inferred translations. It does not describe result shape, but an output schema is present and the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 longer than the minimal two sentences, but every paragraph justifies its presence: core meaning, legal authenticity, a worked example, and a scope exclusion. The Regulation No 1/1958 citation is useful legal context rather than filler. It could be trimmed slightly without losing information, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides the semantic context that the schema cannot: EU multilingual authenticity, bidirectional lookups, and the distinction from national transpositions. Nothing an agent needs to select this tool over siblings or invoke it correctly appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the term parameter by clarifying that German words find the English definition just as well as the reverse, which is not fully obvious from the schema alone. work, limit, and jurisdiction receive no extra prose, but their schema descriptions are already complete.

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?

Leads with a specific verb+resource: how an act words one of its defined terms in each language version held. It immediately distinguishes itself from translation and from national transposition wording, and the example ('commercial guarantee of durability' vs German/French) makes the purpose concrete. The description clearly differentiates the tool from glossary/lookup siblings by scope.

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 says when to use it: 'Use it to answer what do the German and French texts call this?' It also gives a when-not-to-use warning about Member State transposing legislation and names the alternative, find_national_implementations. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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