Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

LawDB

by eu.lawdb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Provision Tool

get_provision
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a single provision — one article or section — of a legislative act, instead of the whole act.

Address the act by its curated short name ("BGB", "DSGVO"), by ELI or CELEX or by the id from a search result, and the provision by its official marker ("§ 823", "Art. 6", "Artikel 6") or by the eid/slug listed under provisions in a get_document response.

Use this whenever you need the wording of a specific norm. Reading a whole code through get_document to reach one section wastes context. If you know the topic but not the marker, use search_provisions first.

The response carries the lawdb.eu url of that very provision. Cite it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "act": "<act>",
      "provision": "<provision>"
    },
    "name": "get_provision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actYesThe legislative act: a short name such as "BGB", an ELI, a CELEX number, or the `id` from a search result.
languageNoISO 639-1 code of the desired language version. Defaults to German, then English.
provisionYesOfficial marker such as "§ 823" or "Artikel 6", or the eid/slug from `get_document`.
include_childrenNoInclude subordinate provisions (paragraphs, points) in the text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent semantics, so the bar is lower; the description adds that the response carries the lawdb.eu `url` of that provision and should be cited. It also implies single-provision granularity, which explains why context cost is low. It does not say what happens when a marker is ambiguous or not found, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the single-provision scope, then addressing forms, then usage guidance — a sensible order with little waste. Minor fragmentation in the closing imperative ("The response carries... Cite it.") but every sentence carries usable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description appropriately notes the returned url, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given four parameters and 100% schema coverage, what remains missing is error/ambiguity behavior and how `include_children` affects the returned text, both minor for a straightforward read.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning by naming concrete accepted forms ("BGB", "DSGVO", ELI, CELEX, search-result `id`; "§ 823", "Art. 6", "Artikel 6") and by tying `provision` to the `provisions` list in a get_document response. Much of this overlaps the schema text, but the resolution path across tools is genuinely useful.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves a single provision — one article or section — of a legislative act") and immediately contrasts scope with the sibling ("instead of the whole act"). An agent can distinguish it from get_document without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("whenever you need the wording of a specific norm"), an explicit anti-pattern with rationale (reading a whole code through get_document wastes context), and a named fallback ("use search_provisions first") for the topic-but-no-marker case.

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

All LawDB toolsInspect
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