eurlex-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of EU legal research: concept search, full-text retrieval, case law, national implementation, structure, and summaries. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'eurlex_' prefix with a clear snake_case noun describing their function (e.g., eurlex_fetch, eurlex_case_law), providing a predictable pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools cover the essential needs of legal research without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a unique and necessary role, well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
Covers core operations: search, retrieval, case law, implementation tracking, structure navigation, and summaries. Minor gap: no general keyword search, but concept search and citation lookup mitigate this.
Average 4.6/5 across 5 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 3 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 20, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context about pagination behavior and identifier resolution via Cellar, but does not disclose other traits like rate limits or return format details beyond the schema.
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 one paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then identifier options, then pagination. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundant text.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, pagination, output schema exists), the description covers identification and pagination well. It does not detail the language parameter or format options, but those are covered in schema. Missing explicit mention of full-text scope (already clear from purpose).
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the exclusive OR relationship among celex_id, eli, and oj_ref, and the pagination flow with next_offset, which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches the full text') and resource ('EU legal act'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like eurlex_summary or eurlex_structure by emphasizing full text retrieval and multiple identifier options.
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?
The description explicitly states 'provide exactly one' of the identifiers and gives examples for each. It also explains pagination with offset and max_chars, linking to next_offset. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage in favor of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it accepts labels or URIs, performs automatic language fallback across all 24 EU languages, and searches by concept rather than exact string match. 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema (so return values are covered) and rich annotations, the description covers core functionality, input formats, and language fallback. It hints at differentiation from siblings via the 'right tool' statement but does not fully contrast with all sibling tools. Overall, it is complete for a search tool with this parameter set.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'concept' parameter by explaining it accepts labels or URIs and that label resolution falls back across languages. This goes beyond the schema's description. Other parameters (limit, language, resource_type) are not elaborated but schema already covers them well.
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 clearly states the tool searches EU legal acts by EuroVoc thematic concept. It distinguishes itself as the right tool when the term may not appear in the title, contrasting with potential title-based searches. The verb 'searches' is specific and the resource 'EU legal acts by EuroVoc concept' is well-defined.
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?
The description indicates when to use this tool ('documents about X' when term not in title) and provides context on language fallback. It implies it is not for title-based searches but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Overall, usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint; description adds behavioral details like truncation at 300 entries, language-specific offsets, and case-law paragraph detection, enhancing transparency.
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 thorough but not overly verbose; it is front-loaded with purpose and logically structured, though some detail on heading recognition could be shortened.
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?
Given the tool complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage pattern, parameter constraints, edge cases (capping, language/law-type specifics).
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?
While schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, the description adds meaning beyond by explaining how offsets interact with eurlex_fetch and the language dependency.
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 clearly states it returns the outline (table of contents) of an EU legal act, distinguishing it from sibling tools like eurlex_fetch by explaining its use as a map for targeted reading.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use (to get offsets for targeted reading) and how to chain with eurlex_fetch, providing clear alternatives and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral detail: CJEU title prefix pattern, query matching as contiguous and case-insensitive, language-specific result behavior, and the fact that party names appear after the prefix.
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 a single paragraph of about 100 words, front-loaded with the main function. Every sentence adds distinct information, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
Given 10 parameters, enums, and an output schema, the description covers all lookup modes, filters, and result fields. It references the output schema implicitly by listing return fields (celex, ecli, etc.), making it complete for an agent to understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining how lookup methods are combinable, that at least one is required, and provides clarifying examples (e.g., '62012CJ0131' for Google Spain). It also notes that date filters are for judgment dates and that query matches a contiguous phrase.
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 clearly states the tool finds CJEU case law, lists specific document types, and distinguishes from sibling tool eurlex_search which searches legislation. It gives four explicit lookup methods with examples.
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?
The description explicitly contrasts with eurlex_search, stating this tool is scoped to case law and understands ECLIs. It implies when to use each lookup method but could be more explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are capped at limit, total_found reports full count, titles are in original language, and language only affects URL locale. It also notes that member states transpose directives only.
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 a single paragraph with 4-5 sentences covering essential points without fluff. It could be more structured (e.g., separating input/output) but is still efficient 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?
Given the complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description provides a thorough overview: it mentions response fields (member state, title, date, CELEX, URL, total_found, results capped), differentiates from siblings, and covers key constraints (titles not translated, directives only). It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds useful context: celex_id must be sector-3 CELEX for directives, country codes are ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 with Greece as 'EL', and language does not translate titles. This goes beyond baseline 3.
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 clearly states it lists national implementing measures for EU directives, specifies the input (celex_id for directives), and differentiates from siblings by noting that for the directive itself one should use eurlex_fetch/eurlex_metadata and that regulations/decisions have no NIMs.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (transposition/compliance tracking) and when not to (directive itself, regulations/decisions). Also mentions optional country filtering and the purpose of the language parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial context beyond annotations: pagination behavior, obsolete flag, multiple summary handling, non-binding nature, and that summaries are available in all 24 languages. No contradictions 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?
Every sentence serves a purpose; front-loaded with main action, followed by input, output, pagination, edge cases. No wasted words.
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?
Covers all aspects: input, output, pagination, edge cases (no summary, multiple summaries), and sibling differentiation. Output schema exists so return values need no additional explanation.
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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds value with concrete examples (GDPR, DSA), explains Cellar 3-letter codes, and clarifies pagination, but few additional details beyond schema.
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 clearly states the tool returns a plain-language summary (LEGISSUM) of an EU act, distinguishes from siblings like eurlex_fetch and eurlex_metadata, and provides specific verb-resource combination.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use (to get summary) and when not (for full legal text or metadata), including alternatives. Also notes that many acts have no summary and explains pagination.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![eurlex-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Honeyfield-Org/eurlex-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Honeyfield-Org/eurlex-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![eurlex-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Honeyfield-Org/eurlex-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Honeyfield-Org/eurlex-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Honeyfield-Org/eurlex-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server