Lawbster

List Available Laws

legal_list_laws

Read-onlyIdempotent

List available laws, regulations, and court decisions in the database. Returns abbreviation, title, source type, jurisdiction, document kind, and version date for each entry.

Unfiltered listings can contain thousands of entries; pass a search term or source_type to keep responses focused. Useful for discovering valid law abbreviations to use as filters in legal_search. Found a relevant law? Use legal_get_toc to browse its structure.

NOT an existence check for a specific law: EUR-Lex entries store the official long title, so searching by common name or number can miss laws that ARE in the corpus. To verify a law exists, use legal_lookup with a citation or legal_search with a topic instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results per page (default 50).
`offset`	No	Start position for pagination.
`search`	No	Case-insensitive search on abbreviation, title and official short designation ('Elektronischer-Rechtsverkehr-Verordnung'), e.g. 'bgb', 'datenschutz'. Also accepts a CELEX number ('32022L2555') or an EU instrument reference ('2022/2555', 'Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2555') and resolves it to the stored law.
`language`	No	Corpus language: 'de' (default — the full German + EU corpus) or 'en' (English-language corpus: currently EDPB/EDSA data-protection guidance only; much smaller than 'de'). DE and EN are separate corpora — a document published in both languages has one entry per language under the same abbreviation. Set 'en' only when the user explicitly works in English or asks for the English version.
`source_type`	No	Filter: 'gii', 'eurlex', 'eurlex_caselaw', 'rechtsprechung', 'bverfge', 'bverwg', 'sachsen_rechtsprechung', 'nrw_rechtsprechung', 'bayern_gesetze', 'nrw_gesetze', 'verwaltungsvorschriften', 'edsa', 'dsk' or 'gesetzesmaterialien'. Note: 'edsa' is published mostly in English — pair it with language='en', or the DE default leaves you only the few translated documents.
`jurisdiction`	No	Filter by jurisdiction: 'de' (all German law — matches federal AND state law; for federal only use source_type='gii'), 'eu', 'de_by' (Bavaria only), 'de_nw' (North Rhine-Westphalia only), 'de_sn' (Saxony only). Leave empty for all jurisdictions.
`document_kind`	No	Filter by document class: the norm subtypes 'statute', 'regulation' and 'directive' form ONE class (any of them lists all three); 'decision' (court case-law), 'guidance' (supervisory-authority soft law, EDSA/DSK) and 'explanatory_memorandum' (legislative materials) are separate classes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: unfiltered listings can contain thousands of entries, and EUR-Lex entries store official long titles so common-name searches can miss existing laws. These caveats help the agent anticipate large responses and avoid false negatives.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then return fields, then performance guidance, then usage context, then exclusions. While longer than the minimal example, every sentence earns its place; the structure is front-loaded and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a list tool with rich annotations and a detailed input schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it (and when not), performance characteristics, and related tools. No essential context is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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% coverage with very detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3 per the rules. The description adds value by explaining search behavior pitfalls (e.g., common names or numbers may not match due to official long titles) and by reinforcing the search/source_type filtering suggestion, which goes beyond the schema's literal field explanations.

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 explicitly states it lists available laws, regulations, and court decisions, and enumerates the returned fields (abbreviation, title, source type, jurisdiction, document kind, version date). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its role in discovering valid law abbreviations and pointing to legal_get_toc and legal_lookup for other tasks.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: useful for discovering abbreviations for legal_search, recommends legal_get_toc for browsing a found law's structure, and warns not to use it as an existence check. It names specific alternatives (legal_lookup, legal_search) for verification, making the when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use crystal clear.

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?