Skip to main content
Glama

lu_get_act

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve metadata for a Luxembourg legal act using its ELI identifier. Access official legislation details from Legilux open data.

Instructions

Fetch metadata for a Luxembourg act by its ELI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eliYesa Legilux ELI - full URI or bare path (e.g. ``eli/etat/leg/loi/2018/08/01/a686/jo``).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
citesNo
titleNo
eli_uriNo
repealsNo
eli_pathNo
modifiesNo
languagesNo
source_urlNo
title_shortNo
dataset_noteNoLegilux (data.legilux.public.lu) serves Luxembourg legislation as jolux RDF over a FRBR model, with full text as Akoma Ntoso XML. It is genuinely ELI-native. There is no HTTP search endpoint, so discovery is by ELI coordinates (no free-text search) - obtain ELIs from legilux.public.lu or from the cites/modifies/repeals links in lu_get_act output.
date_documentNo
eli_uri_nativeNo
manifestationsNo
in_force_statusNo
publication_dateNo
date_entry_in_forceNo
human_readable_citationNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). Description adds context about ELI format but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the core purpose and parameter.

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 a single simple parameter, full output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool.

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% and already explains the ELI format well. Description merely repeats 'by its ELI' without adding new semantic 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 tool 'fetches metadata for a Luxembourg act by its ELI', using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool lu_get_text which likely fetches text.

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 the sibling lu_get_text, though the name and description imply metadata vs text. Absence of when-not-to-use or alternative instructions lowers the score.

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/matematicsolutions/lu-eli-mcp'

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