Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

nu:legal Deutsches Recht

by eu.nulegal
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List citing decisions

listCitingDecisions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Who cites this: the decisions citing a provision (law + ref) or a decision (case). Ranked by weight; sort: "recent" gives the newest first. Each citer links to the Randnummer where it cites. The graph is built over every decision held, federal, Land and EU courts alike, and links federal, EU and Land provisions; it does not link Hessen provisions, which answer total: 0 with coverage.complete_for_this_norm: false: then fall back to search on the provision's wording. coverage carries the counts for the provision's jurisdiction. Example: {"law": "BGB", "ref": "573", "sort": "recent", "limit": 5} or {"case": "bgh/2017-03-29/viii-zr-45-16"}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawNo
refNo
caseNoA stored decision id, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it. The canonical decision key `{court}/{date}/{slug}` (e.g. `bgh/2024-07-10/viii-zr-276-23`) is accepted wherever a decision is named; a key that names two decisions answers `ambiguous` with `candidates`.
sortNo'weight' (default) is citation weight, then court tier, then recency. 'recent' is newest decision first; where it cannot be computed the answer falls back to 'weight' and says so in `sort_applied`.weight
limitNo
offsetNoRows to skip, for reading past the first page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / case / description
      Previous value: -"A juris doknr, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it. The canonical decision key `{court}/{date}/{slug}` (e.g. `bgh/2024-07-10/viii-zr-276-23`) is accepted wherever a doknr is; a key that names two decisions answers `ambiguous` with `candidates`."New value: +"A stored decision id, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it. The canonical decision key `{court}/{date}/{slug}` (e.g. `bgh/2024-07-10/viii-zr-276-23`) is accepted wherever a decision is named; a key that names two decisions answers `ambiguous` with `candidates`."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / case / description
      Previous value: -"A juris doknr, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it."New value: +"A juris doknr, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it. The canonical decision key `{court}/{date}/{slug}` (e.g. `bgh/2024-07-10/viii-zr-276-23`) is accepted wherever a doknr is; a key that names two decisions answers `ambiguous` with `candidates`."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "weight",
+  "description": "'weight' (default) is citation weight, then court tier, then recency. 'recent' is newest decision first; where it cannot be computed the answer falls back to 'weight' and says so in `sort_applied`.",
+  "enum": [
+    "weight",
+    "recent"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: default ranking by weight, `sort: "recent"` behavior, per-citer Randnummer links, and the graph's coverage across federal, Land, and EU courts. It also explicitly warns about the Hessen-provision coverage gap and the fallback behavior, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious limitation an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and input modes, then moves through ranking, coverage caveats, and examples without filler. Despite covering multiple behaviors, it remains compact and every sentence carries operational information.

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 graph-listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the two input modes, default sorting, per-citer linkage, coverage limitations, and the special `total: 0`/`coverage.complete_for_this_norm` outcome. The `case` parameter's ambiguity behavior is also covered in the schema, leaving no major unexplained behavior needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics by pairing `law` + `ref` for provisions, explaining `case` for decisions, and clarifying `sort: "recent"`. It also supplies concrete usage examples including `limit`. The main gap is that `limit` and `offset` are not further explained in the description, though `offset` is covered in the schema.

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 states a specific resource and direction: 'the decisions citing a provision (`law` + `ref`) or a decision (`case`)'. The phrase 'Who cites this' clearly distinguishes this tool from the inverse sibling listCitedAuthorities, which covers cited authorities rather than citing decisions.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions for both accepted input modes: provision via `law` + `ref`, or decision via `case`. It also gives a specific fallback to `search` when Hessen provisions are not linked and return `total: 0` with `coverage.complete_for_this_norm: false`. It does not explicitly route the agent to listCitedAuthorities for the reverse relationship, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative 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 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