Lawbster

Find Citing Court Decisions

legal_find_citing_decisions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List German federal court decisions (BGH, BVerwG, BFH, BAG, BSG, BVerfG, BPatG, GmSOGB), German state court decisions (Sächsisches OVG, Oberverwaltungsgericht NRW, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Oberlandesgericht Köln, Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf, Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm, Landesarbeitsgericht Köln, Landessozialgericht NRW, Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Köln, Finanzgericht Münster, Verfassungsgerichtshof NRW) and EU court decisions (EuGH, EuG) citing a specific legal provision — the raw citation INVENTORY, newest first. For decisions relevant to a specific question or fact pattern, use legal_search with the cited_norm filter instead: it ranks the full citing population against your case question.

Matching is at paragraph level: '§ 280 Abs. 1 BGB' finds all decisions citing § 280 BGB. Returns decisions with Leitsatz (key legal principle summary) and ECLI identifier. Each decision also exposes a cited_norms array — a list of canonical citation strings (e.g. ['Art. 101 AEUV', '§ 280 BGB', 'Art. 6 DSGVO']) describing the other provisions the decision references. Pass an element back to legal_lookup to retrieve the norm's text and walk the citation graph (e.g. discover which BGB / DSGVO articles a BGH judgment hinges on, then resolve them in turn). German provisions, EU treaty articles (AEUV / EUV) and EU instruments with a registered short alias resolve directly — EuGH prose like 'der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679' is reverse-mapped to those aliases (DSGVO, KIVO, DSA, …) where one exists. A numbered EU instrument without a registered alias is shown in the compact 'EURL 98/59' form: it identifies the instrument but is not yet resolvable via legal_lookup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of decisions to return (default 10).
`cited_norm`	Yes	The legal provision, e.g. '§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 6 DSGVO'. For an EU directive both the directive article ('Art. 9 Richtlinie 2011/83/EU') and the national transposition norm ('§ 355 BGB') are valid filters: the directive article matches EU case law (EuGH/EuG) and German decisions citing it directly (richtlinienkonforme Auslegung), while the transposition norm matches the larger body of German decisions applying the transposed rule. Prefer the transposition norm for everyday German case law, the directive article for EU-level interpretation; run a plain legal_search first if you do not know the transposition norm. EU regulations (DSGVO, MDR) are cited directly.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read only and idempotent, but the description adds substantive behavior: paragraph-level matching (e.g., '§ 280 Abs. 1 BGB' finds § 280 BGB citations), return of Leitsatz and ECLI, and the cited_norms array for cross-referencing. It even explains reverse-mapping of EU instruments to aliases and the EURL 98/59 fallback, which is far beyond the annotation bar.

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?

The description is long but structured, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and alternative tool guidance immediately after. The extensive court lists and EU resolution details earn their place given the tool's complexity, though some sentences could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present, the description's inclusion of Leitsatz, ECLI, and cited_norms adds value without being required. It covers purpose, alternatives, matching semantics, and EU resolution behavior, making it complete for a complex legal research tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3; the main description adds extra context about paragraph-level matching and representation of EU instruments (aliases vs. EURL compact form). While useful, this mostly reinforces the schema's already detailed cited_norm guidance, so a 4 rather than 5 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and clearly defines the resource: German, state, and EU court decisions citing a specific legal provision, described as a 'raw citation INVENTORY, newest first.' It distinguishes itself from legal_search, which ranks citing decisions against a case question.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: 'For decisions relevant to a specific question or fact pattern, use legal_search with the cited_norm filter instead.' It also provides contextual guidance on preferring transposition norms for German case law and directive articles for EU-level interpretation.

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

All Lawbster tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each legal tool targets a distinct operation: finding citing decisions, retrieving context, legislative history, stats, TOC, law lists, and exact lookups. The batch lookup is clearly a convenience wrapper for the single lookup, and the generic resource tools are unmistakably separate from the legal research functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All legal tools follow a consistent 'legal_' prefix plus verb_noun pattern (e.g., legal_find_citing_decisions, legal_get_context, legal_list_laws). The two generic MCP tools also follow verb_noun (list_resources, read_resource), maintaining overall consistency.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a comprehensive legal research domain. Each tool provides a distinct capability, and none feels redundant or excessive. The count is within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core legal research lifecycle: discovery (list_laws, search), lookup (lookup, lookup_batch), citation analysis (find_citing_decisions), structural navigation (get_toc, get_context), and legislative intent (get_materials). Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of coverage for certain state court decisions and non-German legislative materials, but these are explicitly documented and workarounds are provided.

Resources

Need Help?