eurlex-mcp-server

eurlex_case_law

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and retrieve CJEU case law by party name, CELEX, ECLI, or related act, filtered by court, case type, date range, and language, returning citations and URLs.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ecli`	No	European Case Law Identifier, e.g. "ECLI:EU:C:2014:317" (Google Spain).
`type`	No	Procedure type filter: JUDG=judgment, ORDER=court order, OPIN_AG=Advocate General opinion, any=all case-law document types (incl. procedural notices).	any
`court`	No	Court filter: COURT_JUSTICE=Court of Justice, GENERAL_COURT=General Court, any=both.	any
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results
`query`	No	Title 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_to`	No	Filter up to this judgment date, format YYYY-MM-DD
`celex_id`	No	Sector-6 CELEX identifier of a specific ruling, e.g. "62012CJ0131" (Google Spain).
`language`	No	Language 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_from`	No	Filter from this judgment date onward, format YYYY-MM-DD
`related_celex`	No	CELEX of a legal act (e.g. "32016R0679" for the GDPR); returns the case law that interprets that act.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes	Number of entries in `results`
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.4.2Sep 7, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0Jul 22, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / language / default
```
Previous value: -"DEU"New value: +"ENG"
```
First observedv2.2.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context such as how query matching works (contiguous phrase, case-insensitive, boilerplate prefix) and that rulings without a title in the selected language yield no result. This goes 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured, with the main purpose first and parameter-specific guidance following. Every sentence adds value, with examples and clarifications that are useful without being verbose.

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 output schema exists and is rich, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides comprehensive guidance on all parameters, explains edge cases (language availability, query prefix behavior), and differentiates from sibling tools, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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% and the description adds significant semantic detail beyond the schema, including clear examples for ecli, celex_id, related_celex, explains the query matching behavior and the meaning of type/court enums, and notes the language limitation. The description adds value beyond the already thorough 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 finds CJEU case law and explicitly distinguishes it from eurlex_search which searches legislation. It specifies the resource (CJEU case law) and the action (finds), and differentiates from siblings.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, stating 'Unlike eurlex_search (which searches legislation by title), this tool is scoped to case law and understands ECLIs and act-to-case-law relations.' This clearly signals the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server