Lawbster

Look Up Provision by Citation

legal_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full text of a specific legal provision by exact citation (e.g. '§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 6 DSGVO', '§ 280 Abs. 1 BGB'), or a court decision by Aktenzeichen or ECLI (e.g. 'VII ZR 184/14', 'BGH VII ZR 184/14', 'C-184/14', 'ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:050117BVIIZR184.14.0'). Citation order is flexible — '§ 9 DSGVO', 'DSGVO Art. 9', 'Artikel 9 DSGVO' all resolve correctly. A decision lookup returns its lead section (Leitsatz) — use legal_get_toc / legal_get_context on the result to read further sections.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`citation`	Yes	Full citation string, e.g. '§ 823 BGB' or 'VII ZR 184/14'
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description reveals flexible citation order and that decision lookups return the Leitsatz, with a suggestion to use additional tools for further sections. This adds valuable behavioral detail without contradicting annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, examples, formatting flexibility, and decision-lookup behavior with tool handoff. No redundant or vague content.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers input types, resolution behavior, decision-lookup semantics, and follow-up tools, enabling correct tool 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?

Schema descriptions cover both parameters fully, but the description enhances the citation parameter with concrete examples ('§ 823 BGB', 'ECLI:...') and notes that citation order is flexible. The language parameter is well-documented in the schema and not repeated unnecessarily.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves full legal provisions or court decisions by exact citation/Aktenzeichen/ECLI, with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on exact lookup and recommending legal_get_toc / legal_get_context for further sections.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly defines when to use this tool (exact citation lookup) and points to alternatives for follow-up (legal_get_toc / legal_get_context). It does not explicitly contrast with search or batch lookup tools, but the context makes the usage 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?