Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

nu:legal Deutsches Recht

by eu.nulegal
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change Feed

getChanges
Read-onlyIdempotent

What changed here, as JSON. Two ways to read it.

The cursor feed (send kinds, or cursor): everything that changed, oldest first, readable to the end without gaps: decisions added or changed, provisions with a new text (new Fassung, new provision, new law), and new citation links (decision X now cites Y, or decision Y gained a citer). Start with kinds (and since, default 7 days ago), then pass next_cursor back unchanged, with the same filters, until has_more is false; keep the cursor and poll with it later.

Without those arguments: the provisions that got a new text recently, newest first. Poll it with since set to the newest observed you have processed.

observed / observed_at is when the change reached this service, not when a court decided or a law came into force. Say so if you report a date. The window is the last 120 days; a provision's own history is listNormVersions.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawNoCursor feed: a law abbreviation (BGB). Leaves out links between decisions.
landNoCursor feed: a Land code (BY, NW, SN, BB, ...) or BUND.
courtNoCursor feed: a court, as the court segment of a decision URL (bgh).
kindsNoCursor feed: which kinds (decision, law, citation).
limitNoDefault 50 (date list) or 100 (cursor feed).
sinceNoOnly changes observed on or after this date (cursor feed: at most 120 days back, default 7).
cursorNoCursor feed: `next_cursor` of the previous call, unchanged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / court
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cursor feed: a court, as the court segment of a decision URL (bgh).",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cursor feed: `next_cursor` of the previous call, unchanged.",
+  "maxLength": 1000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / kinds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cursor feed: which kinds (decision, law, citation).",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "decision",
+      "law",
+      "citation"
+    ]
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / land
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cursor feed: a Land code (BY, NW, SN, BB, ...) or BUND.",
+  "maxLength": 8,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / law
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cursor feed: a law abbreviation (BGB). Leaves out links between decisions.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Removed value: -50
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Default 50 (date list) or 100 (cursor feed)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Previous value: -"Only changes observed on or after this date."New value: +"Only changes observed on or after this date (cursor feed: at most 120 days back, default 7)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds material behavior not in them: a 120-day window, the crucial caveat that `observed` is ingestion time rather than decision or enactment date (with an instruction to say so when reporting), and the requirement to keep filters stable across cursor pages. That is exactly the kind of operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 two-mode structure is front-loaded ('Two ways to read it') and each paragraph maps to one mode, so scanning is easy. It is nonetheless dense prose that could be tightened, e.g. the reporting caveat sentence, though that content is genuinely useful.

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 7-parameter, no-required-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (JSON with `next_cursor`, `has_more`, `observed`), pagination lifetime, poll strategy, and the 120-day horizon. An agent can call it correctly and reuse cursors without further information.

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 schema already documents each parameter; the description goes further by explaining the mode-selection semantics of `kinds` and `cursor`, the 7-day default for `since`, and the identity between `next_cursor` in the response and the `cursor` input. Minor room left: it does not explain how `law`/`land`/`court` interact or whether they apply to the date-list mode.

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 names the resource (a change feed of decisions, provision texts, and citation links) and enumerates the exact change types returned, including concrete examples like 'new Fassung, new provision, new law' and 'decision X now cites Y'. It also distinguishes the tool's scope from listNormVersions for a single provision's history, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

It gives an explicit decision rule: if you send `kinds` or `cursor`, you get the full cursor feed; without those arguments you get the recent-newest-first provision list. It further prescribes the calling sequence (start with `kinds` and `since`, pass `next_cursor` back unchanged with the same filters until `has_more` is false) and names listNormVersions as the alternative for per-provision history.

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

All nu:legal Deutsches Recht 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