nu:legal Deutsches Recht

Anwaltsprofil abrufen

get_lawyer

Read-onlyIdempotent

One lawyer's profile by id from search_lawyers: the official register entry with the date it was checked (chamber, admission, firm, office address, phone, fax, e-mail, website, beA id), Fachanwalt titles, contact data, languages, focus areas, opening hours and ratings per platform with the combined score. It holds what the public profile page (profile_url) shows, no more. Example: {"id": "8a0fa1b2c3d4e5f6"}

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_lawyer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	the `id` of a search_lawyers result

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`also`	No	further professions (Notar, Patentanwalt)
`city`	No
`firm`	No	Firm name exactly as on record; null = no firm on record. Do not derive a firm from website, domain, address or colleagues.
`name`	No
`next`	No	what to call instead
`note`	No
`error`	No	true when the call could not be answered
`links`	No	website, linkedin, xing, google
`detail`	No
`reason`	No	machine-readable reason of an error
`address`	No	the office address the profile shows
`contact`	No	phone and email as the profile shows them
`ratings`	No
`register`	No	the entry in the official register of the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer as the profile shows it; null where the profile has none
`verified`	No
`languages`	No	Languages other than German that the profile names, verbatim. Report only these; do not add German or any language not listed.
`fachanwalt`	No	Fachanwalt titles (certified specialist in an area of law)
`profession`	No
`distance_km`	No
`focus_areas`	No
`profile_url`	No
`review_count`	No
`contact_notes`	No
`facts_sources`	No
`opening_hours`	No
`ratings_scope`	No
`correction_url`	No
`combined_rating`	No	0 to 5, over all rating platforms
`other_registers`	No
`online_consultation`	No
`verified_in_register_on`	No	ISO date the register entry was checked

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: the record is an official register entry carrying a "date it was checked" (a freshness signal) and is capped at public-profile visibility, which tells the agent what it will and will not see.

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-loaded with the core statement and the sibling reference, then the payload scope, then a compact example. The enumerated field list is long but earns its place as a quick orientation; it could be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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 one-parameter read of a single record, the description covers identity, id provenance, scope limits and freshness. Return values are separately covered by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the single `id` parameter already has a pattern and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance (must be a search_lawyers id) plus a concrete example value, which reduces malformed-id calls beyond what the schema conveys.

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+resource ("One lawyer's profile by `id`") and immediately anchors it against the sibling by naming search_lawyers as the source of the id. It also bounds scope with "It holds what the public profile page (`profile_url`) shows, no more," so an agent can tell exactly which tool returns this data.

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?

Clear about context: the id must come from a search_lawyers result, and the example shows the accepted shape. There is no explicit "when not to use" (e.g. use search_lawyers when you only have a name), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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 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.