Skip to main content
Glama
Honeyfield-Org

eurlex-mcp-server

by Honeyfield-Org
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

eurlex_case_law

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find CJEU judgments, orders, and Advocate General opinions by party name, CELEX, ECLI, or related legislation. Filter by court, type, language, and date.

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.DEU
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: how query matching works (contiguous phrase, case-insensitive, boilerplate prefix), the return fields (celex, ecli, title, date, type, eurlex_url), and the effect of missing language (no result). No contradictions.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and key search methods, then detailing parameters and return fields. It is informative but slightly lengthy; could be tightened without losing clarity.

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, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, return fields, and behavioral transparency. It is complete and provides no gaps for an agent to understand invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description significantly adds value by explaining the matching behavior for query, providing examples for celex_id and ecli, clarifying the purpose of related_celex, listing meanings for type enum, and detailing language codes with fallback. This goes well beyond the schema 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 states a specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) case law'), lists document types, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling eurlex_search by scope and search methods (ECLIs, act-to-case-law relations).

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 tells when to use the tool (to find case law), specifies that at least one of four search methods is required, and explicitly contrasts with eurlex_search, stating it is scoped to case law and understands ECLIs and act-to-case-law relations.

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