PRIMAMCP

Get Legislative Materials (Begründung)

legal_get_materials

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the official legislative reasoning (Gesetzesbegründung / explanatory memorandum from a Bundestags-Drucksache) for a specific German federal provision — the source for genetic/historical interpretation: what the legislator intended with this norm.

It answers questions that turn on a norm's purpose (ratio legis / 'why does this rule exist'), the meaning of an unclear or undefined term, whether a regulatory gap is planwidrig (grounds an analogy) or a deliberate silence (grounds an Umkehrschluss), or what a specific amendment was meant to achieve — the everyday uses of materials in an Auslegung or a Schriftsatz. Weight: the Begründung is strong evidence of legislative intent but not binding, and the statutory wording stays the outer limit of any reading.

Pass a provision like '§ 823 BGB' or 'Art. 87a GG'. Returns the linked Begründungs-Abschnitte newest first, each with its 'BT-Drs.' Fundstelle, the reasoning text, and the other norms the same change amended ('target_norm_keys'). Complements legal_find_citing_decisions (how courts apply a norm) with the drafting intent behind it. Covers amendments since 1949 to German federal law (gesetze-im-internet corpus) only; an unknown or non-German provision returns no materials. Excerpts are prepared from the Bundestag-extracted text, not the original PDF.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of Begründung segments to return (default 10).
`citation`	Yes	The legal provision, e.g. '§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 87a GG'.
`jurisdiction`	No	Legal orders the call covers, one or more ('de', 'eu', 'de_by', 'de_nw', 'de_sn'). Materials exist for German federal law only: a scope without 'de' returns a hint instead of materials. Omitted, the account's legal order applies.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / citation

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The legal provision, e.g. '§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 87a GG'.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / norm

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The legal provision, e.g. '§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 87a GG'.",
-  "maxLength": 200,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "norm"
-]New value: +[
+  "citation"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "description": "Jurisdiction of the legal document.",
+        "enum": [
+          "de",
+          "eu",
+          "de_by",
+          "de_sn",
+          "de_nw"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Legal orders the call covers, one or more ('de', 'eu', 'de_by', 'de_nw', 'de_sn'). Materials exist for German federal law only: a scope without 'de' returns a hint instead of materials. Omitted, the account's legal order applies."
+}

AddedJun 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses output ordering (newest first), returned fields (BT-Drs. Fundstelle, reasoning text, target_norm_keys), scope-failure behavior, source-text caveats, and the evidentiary weight of the Begründung. No behavior contradicts the annotations.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the description is dense with useful legal context rather than filler. It is somewhat long, but the length is largely justified by the tool's specialized legal domain and scope caveats.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage scenarios, scope limits, output shape, source caveats, and evidentiary weight. With annotations and an output schema already present, this leaves no material gap for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents citation, limit, and jurisdiction thoroughly. The description reinforces citation examples and jurisdiction scoping but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the limit parameter.

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 and resource: returning the official legislative reasoning (Gesetzesbegründung) for a specific German federal provision. It also states the scope and distinguishes the tool from legal_find_citing_decisions, which covers how courts apply a norm rather than drafting intent.

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?

It gives explicit use cases—norm purpose, unclear terms, planwidrig gaps, deliberate silence, and amendment intent—and names the complementary sibling tool. It also clearly excludes non-German or unknown provisions and states the corpus scope from 1949 onward.

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

All PRIMAMCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?