Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LexAPI MCP

LexAPI MCP

Official
by Lex-API
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

lex_get_document_by_url

Fetch a parsed EU legal document from any EUR-Lex URL by pasting its link. Extracts the CELEX identifier and returns document details.

Instructions

Fetch a parsed document from any EUR-Lex URL — useful when the user pastes a link from their browser. Extracts the CELEX from the URL and returns the same shape as lex_get_document plus sourceUrl and extractedCelex echoes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "lex_get_document_by_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAny eur-lex.europa.eu URL containing a CELEX: identifier or uri= parameter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool extracts CELEX from the URL and returns specific fields, but does not mention behavior for invalid URLs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key differentiator.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to a sibling. It could mention error handling but is adequate for basic use.

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% with a single parameter already described. The description adds context that the URL must be an eur-lex.europa.eu URL containing a CELEX identifier or uri= parameter, which adds marginal value beyond what the schema already states.

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 fetches a parsed document from any EUR-Lex URL, extracts CELEX, and returns the same shape as lex_get_document plus additional echoes. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling lex_get_document by specifying the output differences.

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 says 'useful when the user pastes a link from their browser', giving clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond implicit comparison to lex_get_document.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools