Skip to main content
Glama
Honeyfield-Org

eurlex-mcp-server

by Honeyfield-Org
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

eurlex_case_law

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Court of Justice of the EU case law — judgments, orders, and Advocate General opinions. Search by party name, CELEX ID, ECLI, or related legislation to locate rulings interpreting specific legal acts.

Instructions

Finds Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) case law — judgments (JUDG), orders (ORDER), and Advocate General opinions (OPIN_AG) of the Court of Justice and the General Court. Look up rulings four ways (at least one required, combinable): query=title/party substring (e.g. "Schrems"), celex_id=a sector-6 CELEX (e.g. "62012CJ0131"), ecli=a European Case Law Identifier (e.g. "ECLI:EU:C:2014:317"), or related_celex=a legal act's CELEX (e.g. "32016R0679") to get the case law interpreting that act. Narrow with court (COURT_JUSTICE/GENERAL_COURT), type, language, and date_from/date_to. Unlike eurlex_search (which searches legislation by title), this tool is scoped to case law and understands ECLIs and act-to-case-law relations. Each hit returns celex, ecli, title, date, type, and eurlex_url.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ecliNoEuropean Case Law Identifier, e.g. "ECLI:EU:C:2014:317" (Google Spain).
typeNoProcedure type filter: JUDG=judgment, ORDER=court order, OPIN_AG=Advocate General opinion, any=all case-law document types (incl. procedural notices).any
courtNoCourt filter: COURT_JUSTICE=Court of Justice, GENERAL_COURT=General Court, any=both.any
limitNoMaximum number of results
queryNoTitle substring to search for among case law, e.g. "Schrems" or a party name. Matched as a contiguous phrase, case-insensitive. Note: CJEU titles begin with a boilerplate prefix ("Judgment of the Court …"); party names appear after it.
date_toNoFilter up to this judgment date, format YYYY-MM-DD
celex_idNoSector-6 CELEX identifier of a specific ruling, e.g. "62012CJ0131" (Google Spain).
languageNoLanguage of the title, as a Cellar 3-letter code (any of the 24 official EU languages, e.g. DEU, ENG, FRA, POL, SPA). A ruling with no title in this language yields no result.ENG
date_fromNoFilter from this judgment date onward, format YYYY-MM-DD
related_celexNoCELEX of a legal act (e.g. "32016R0679" for the GDPR); returns the case law that interprets that act.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYesNumber of entries in `results`
resultsYes

Tool Definition Quality

A4.8/5.0
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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