Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LexAPI MCP

LexAPI MCP

Official
by Lex-API
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

lex_get_metadata

Retrieve metadata for an EU legal document by CELEX number, including title, dates, type, author, and keywords. Faster than full document retrieval, ideal for quick lookups.

Instructions

Fetch metadata only for a CELEX (title, dates, type, author, ECLI/ELI, keywords, subjects) — significantly faster than lex_get_document because it skips body parsing. Use this for quick "what is this document" lookups or before deciding whether to fetch the body.

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": {
      "celexNumber": "<celexNumber>"
    },
    "name": "lex_get_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
celexNumberYesCELEX identifier.

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?

With no annotations, description discloses key behavioral trait: it skips body parsing (thus faster and lighter). Does not mention safety (read-only) or permissions, but for a metadata fetch tool this is adequate. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no redundant words. Purpose stated upfront, key differentiator in second sentence. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description lists expected metadata fields (title, dates, etc.), compensating well. Explains speed advantage and use case. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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% (celexNumber described with pattern). Description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the CELEX identifier, but explains what metadata is returned, which indirectly justifies the parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Fetch metadata only for a CELEX' and lists specific metadata fields (title, dates, type, author, ECLI/ELI, keywords, subjects). Distinguishes from sibling lex_get_document by noting it skips body parsing and is faster.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Use this for quick "what is this document" lookups or before deciding whether to fetch the body.' Implicitly excludes use cases needing full content. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond lex_get_document, but sufficient guidance.

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