Skip to main content
Glama

Lex — Temporal Luxembourg and EU Law

by io.github.SFHAJJI

timeline

Every publisher state a document has been in: timeline intervals, version keys, and explicit timeline_semantics. Legilux intervals describe applicability; EUR-Lex intervals describe official consolidated wording states, not entry into force.

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.
limitNomax versions (default 100)
offsetNopagination offset
publisherNopublisher id; required when work is not publisher-qualified

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +200
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
      Added value: +100000
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / minimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / publisher
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "publisher id; required when work is not publisher-qualified",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • 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
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the different interval semantics for Legilux and EUR-Lex. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or error conditions. The explanation of semantics is useful but leaves other behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying note on interval semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 description explains what the timeline represents and the distinction between Legilux and EUR-Lex intervals, which is essential for correct interpretation. However, with no output schema and no mention of pagination or response structure, it is not fully complete for an agent handling complex queries. The presence of sibling tools makes this description adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The mention of 'version keys' and 'timeline_semantics' relates to the output, not the input parameters, so no additional value is added.

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 states that the tool returns the timeline of publisher states, including intervals, version keys, and timeline semantics. It clearly references the resource (timeline) and the kind of data returned. It differentiates between Legilux and EUR-Lex interval meanings, which helps distinguish from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 provides context for interpreting intervals but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'as_of' or 'in_force_on'. The semantic distinction (applicability vs. consolidated wording) implies a use case, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements or mentions of sibling alternatives.

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