fr-eli-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.4.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct type of French legal document (legislation, court decisions, CNIL deliberations, collective agreements, company agreements) with unique ID patterns clearly described. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'fr_verb' pattern with snake_case, using 'fr_search' for search and 'fr_get_*' for retrieval. This makes the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools covering core French legal document types (acts, articles, decisions, deliberations, conventions, company agreements, and search), the count is well-scoped for the domain without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides search and retrieval for all major Legifrance document types. Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for listing articles within an act or browsing document structures, but the core operations are covered.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 7, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no new behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits). This is acceptable given the high annotation coverage.
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 a single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more context but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface with 2 parameters and an output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for an agent to understand the basic function. More details on behavior or output format would improve completeness.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool consults a LODA law or decree by a LEGITEXT identifier, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools like fr_get_text or fr_get_decision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a LEGITEXT ID is available, and the parameter description hints at prior use of fr_search. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description does not add any behavioral traits beyond stating it is a search operation. No contradiction, but no added value.
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?
Single sentence, clear and to the point. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but current structure is 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated true), the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the essential purpose. Could mention that it searches across multiple fond types, but the schema already does that.
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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions for fond (enumerating values), query, and page_size. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Keyword-search French legislation or case law on Legifrance' clearly states the verb (search), resource (French legislation or case law), and context (Legifrance). It distinguishes from sibling tools that are all 'get' operations for specific documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied by the sibling names (e.g., fr_get_act) that search is for finding documents while get tools retrieve specific ones, but no direct when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the native ECLI and uses the Legifrance consult/juri endpoint, which provides some additional behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, with the main action in the first sentence and the rest used to explain the id format variants. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words.
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 single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, id formats, and relationship to siblings.
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 description coverage is 100%. The input schema's description of decision_id already explains the id formats. The tool description reinforces these formats but does not add new semantic information beyond the 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 consults a court decision by its id and returns the native ECLI. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying three jurisdictions with distinct id prefixes (JURITEXT, CONSTEXT, CETATEXT).
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 provides context on when to use the tool (when you have a decision id from fr_search with specific fonds) and implicitly differentiates from siblings by listing id formats. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the behavioral safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Consult', which is consistent with annotations. 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?
The description is a single 12-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
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 simple tool with one well-described parameter, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough to allow an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating the parameter's purpose and the identifier format, which is already in the 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 'Consult a collective labour agreement text' using a specific identifier format 'KALITEXT...', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fr_get_act or fr_get_text that deal with different document types.
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 mentions the identifier comes from fr_search on fond KALI, providing context for obtaining the input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling names imply distinct document categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral information beyond what is in the annotations, such as potential rate limits or 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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information.
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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's basic operation and dependencies.
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 description for deliberation_id that explains its format and source. The main description repeats this information, adding no new meaning beyond the 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 action 'Consult' and the resource 'a CNIL deliberation', and specifies the id format 'CNILTEXT...'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like fr_search (which finds the id) and other get tools for different document types.
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 mentions the id source ('from fr_search on fond CNIL'), implying this tool is used after obtaining the id via fr_search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the implicit dependency.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by clarifying that the tool returns 'verbatim text' of a 'single article', indicating limited scope. 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys essential information without any superfluous words, demonstrating excellent conciseness and structure.
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, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior. It could optionally mention that the output is the actual article text, but not necessary.
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?
The single parameter article_id has 100% schema coverage, with the schema description detailing the identifier format and origin. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the purpose, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches verbatim text of a single article and specifies the acceptable identifier patterns (LEGIARTI... or KALIARTI...), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fr_get_act or fr_get_convention which handle different objects.
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 implies usage context by mentioning identifiers come from fr_get_act or fr_get_convention, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns metadata only and why, plus mentions the source_url. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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, both essential. The first sentence states the core purpose and a key constraint. The second explains the rationale and return content. No extraneous words; information is front-loaded.
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 simple tool (one parameter, good schema coverage, annotations present, output schema exists), the description covers the return value (metadata fields plus source_url) and the limitation regarding full text. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand usage.
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?
The schema description for agreement_id is already detailed, mentioning its format and origin. The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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?
The description clearly states that the tool consults a company-level agreement by its ACCOTEXT id and returns metadata only. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it targets ACCO agreements and explains why full text is not provided (Legifrance distributes as .docx).
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 indicates when to use the tool (to get agreement metadata) and notes that the full text is a .docx attachment, implying it should not be used to retrieve full text. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fr-eli-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/matematicsolutions/fr-eli-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/matematicsolutions/fr-eli-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fr-eli-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/matematicsolutions/fr-eli-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/matematicsolutions/fr-eli-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/matematicsolutions/fr-eli-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server