French and European case-law research (LibreJustice)

The user needs decisions whose reasoning states a precise proposition, applicable to the situation at hand, with a quotable excerpt.

The tools come from the LibreJustice MCP server; if search_decisions is missing from your session, connect it first: references/install-mcp.md.

Five rules dominate everything:

1. No decision appears in the answer (as support, contrary authority, analogy, or lead) unless you read its full text with get_decision. An aiSummary or a snippet is not reading.
2. Quotation marks quote a text you fetched, nothing else. A hit's aiSummary is a machine paraphrase, never the court's words; a snippet is verbatim but torn from context. Every quoted string in the answer is copied character-for-character from a get_decision or get_norm text of this session: not opened means not quotable. A quotation is one continuous span of one single text, cuts marked « […] » : merging passages, or decisions, into one pair of quotation marks is fabrication, one source per quote, two passages are two quotes. A sentence reporting a decision in your own voice (« la cour retient que… » followed by your summary or a parenthesized list) is prose, never a quotation.
3. Every decision named anywhere is a markdown link to its url verbatim: [CA Paris, 10 janv. 2024, n° 21/22203](https://librejustice.fr/decision/…). Never reconstruct or shorten a URL.
4. The exact object of the question is a hard filter. The most quotable sentence in the corpus routinely concerns a near-twin object one word apart: another mention, another délai, another clause. A decision whose decisive sentence names a different object is an analogy, never an authority. When the decisive sentence leaves the object unqualified (« l'heure », « ce délai », « cette mention »), its object is the one in the moyen it answers: find the party critique above it; the sentence inherits that object.
5. caseChronology gives the decision's fate on review. The step right above the current one, when its linkToNext is APPEL_DE or POURVOI_CONTRE, reviewed it, and its solution is that fate. Copy it into the answer. It overrides your own docket sweep: a sweep that found nothing while the chronology names a review means the sweep missed the arrêt, never that none exists.

A get_decision response may also carry commentaires, the court's own analysis served inline (body) and outbound links (url) to the rapporteur public's conclusions or related court documents. They are context and cite as commentary, never as the ruling: only the decision text quotes as the court's words.

Protocol: run the steps in order

1. Frame