Skip to main content
Glama

lu_get_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the verbatim text of a Luxembourg act in a chosen language (French or German) and format (XML or HTML) using its Legilux ELI identifier.

Instructions

Fetch the verbatim text of a Luxembourg act in one language and format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eliYesa Legilux ELI - full URI or bare path.
languageNoe.g. ``fr`` (default) or ``de``.fr
file_formatNo``xml`` (Akoma Ntoso, default) or ``html``.xml

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNo
contentNo
eli_uriNo
file_urlNo
languageNo
byte_sizeNo
source_urlNo
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.
human_readable_citationNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide read-only and idempotent hints. Description adds 'verbatim text' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and object, no wasted words.

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?

Covers main purpose, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tool lu_get_act. Mentions language and format, but does not reference Legilux or legal system (though schema does).

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. Description does not add meaningful semantics 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?

Description clearly states it fetches 'verbatim text' of a Luxembourg act in a specific language and format, distinguishing it from a sibling tool that likely retrieves the act itself or metadata.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lu_get_act). Does not specify prerequisites or context.

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