Skip to main content
Glama

Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law

by io.github.SFHAJJI

diff

What changed between two dates for one work: which publisher versions cover the selected dates and, where both texts are held, retrieve them via as_of to compare. An optional held article anchor scopes the typed comparison workspace. Read timeline_semantics before describing legal applicability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workYesWork-level lex_id (publisher:workkey), version-level lex_id (version segment ignored), or verbatim publisher identifier with publisher supplied. Unknown document -> call search first.
anchorNooptional held provision anchor returned by search, e.g. art_92
to_dateYesISO date
languageNolanguage code
from_dateYesISO date
publisherNopublisher id; required when work is not publisher-qualified
to_version_keyNooptional opaque key returned by timeline or an ambiguous_version choice
from_version_keyNooptional opaque key returned by timeline or an ambiguous_version choice

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / from_date / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$"New value: +"^\\d{4}-(0[1-9]|1[0-2])-(0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])$"
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_version_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional opaque key returned by timeline or an ambiguous_version choice",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / to_date / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$"New value: +"^\\d{4}-(0[1-9]|1[0-2])-(0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])$"
    • addedInput schema / properties / to_version_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional opaque key returned by timeline or an ambiguous_version choice",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed15 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / anchor / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • addedInput schema / properties / anchor / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_date / maxLength
      Added value: +10
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_date / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_date / pattern
      Added value: +"^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$"
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / maxLength
      Added value: +16
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / publisher
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "publisher id; required when work is not publisher-qualified",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / to_date / maxLength
      Added value: +10
    • addedInput schema / properties / to_date / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / to_date / pattern
      Added value: +"^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / work / description
      Previous value: -"Work-level lex_id (publisher:workkey), version-level lex_id (version segment ignored), or verbatim publisher identifier. Unknown document -> call search first."New value: +"Work-level lex_id (publisher:workkey), version-level lex_id (version segment ignored), or verbatim publisher identifier with publisher supplied. Unknown document -> call search first."
    • addedInput schema / properties / work / maxLength
      Added value: +1000
    • addedInput schema / properties / work / minLength
      Added value: +1
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / anchor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional held provision anchor returned by search, e.g. art_92",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses retrieval via as_of, the scoping effect of an anchor, and a prerequisite for legal applicability. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error outcomes, or return structure, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences convey a dense but focused purpose. The first sentence packs the core mechanics, and the second adds the anchor behavior and a caveat. No wasted words, though the first sentence is somewhat complex.

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?

For a complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key interactions but leaves gaps: it does not describe return format, error conditions, or clarify 'typed comparison workspace' and 'timeline_semantics'. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic context for 'anchor' ('scopes the typed comparison workspace') and relates 'work' to version/date selection, but does not go beyond the schema for other parameters, aligning with the baseline.

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's function: 'What changed between two dates for one work' and outlines the process of identifying publisher versions covering selected dates and retrieving them via as_of to compare. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing as_of and timeline_semantics, signaling specific use cases.

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 clear context on when to use: for comparing versions across dates for a single work, with an optional anchor for scoping. Mentions a prerequisite ('Read timeline_semantics') and a condition ('where both texts are held'), though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like changes_in_period.

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

All Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but timeline and article_history both cover historical versions, and as_of and in_force_on both relate to state on a date. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve overlap, so confusion is limited.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase with underscores, but they mix noun forms (coverage, provenance), verb forms (search, diff), and prepositional phrases (as_of, in_force_on, changes_in_period). This is readable but lacks a consistent pattern like verb_noun.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized legal research server. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of temporal legal queries, and none feel redundant or superfluous.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers search, retrieval, history, citations, coverage gaps, and provenance. It supports both document-level and corpus-level temporal analysis, making it comprehensive for the stated domain of Luxembourg and EU law research.

Resources