Skip to main content
Glama

Lexiara

by org.lexiara
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Who names this act, provision by provision

work_mentions
Read-onlyIdempotent

The act-level overview: every provision of every instrument in this corpus that names the given act, grouped by citing instrument, with the article of the act each citation resolved to (targetEId, null where the citation is act-level — which is most of them, and is not a defect). Each instrument also carries adoptions: definitions it BORROWS from this act rather than writing, which is a different claim and is counted apart, never summed with the citations. Use related_works for the same question at instrument level, which is public. A row asserts that the provision NAMES this act, and nothing about whether it implements or corresponds to it.

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
eliYesELI URI or official number of the instrument — a French code has only the latter.
limitNoMaximum citing provisions, default 500, cap 2000.

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context: the null targetEId case is expected and not a defect, adoptions are borrowed definitions counted separately and never summed with citations, and Nexus data requires a signed-in API key with a monthly allowance. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the act-level overview and grouping come first, then the scope caveat, then the sibling routing. The trailing API-key/allowance sentence is somewhat boilerplate but still earns its place for access planning.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the ambiguous output semantics (targetEId null, adoptions vs citations) and the scope limitation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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 the eli and limit parameters (default 500, cap 2000) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail about eli or limit, so baseline 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('every provision of every instrument ... that names the given act') and the grouping granularity (by citing instrument). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling related_works and from implementation-oriented tools by stating what a row does and does not assert.

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?

Names the alternative (related_works) and the condition that selects it ('the same question at instrument level, which is public'), and implicitly routes implementation questions elsewhere by saying a row says nothing about implementation. No explicit statement of when-not-to-use beyond that, so slightly short of 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
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