PRIMAMCP

Get Legislative Materials (Begründung)

legal_get_materials

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the official legislative reasoning (Gesetzesbegründung / explanatory memorandum from a Bundestags-Drucksache) for a specific German federal provision — the source for genetic/historical interpretation: what the legislator intended with this norm.

It answers questions that turn on a norm's purpose (ratio legis / 'why does this rule exist'), the meaning of an unclear or undefined term, whether a regulatory gap is planwidrig (grounds an analogy) or a deliberate silence (grounds an Umkehrschluss), or what a specific amendment was meant to achieve — the everyday uses of materials in an Auslegung or a Schriftsatz. Weight: the Begründung is strong evidence of legislative intent but not binding, and the statutory wording stays the outer limit of any reading.

Pass a provision like '§ 823 BGB' or 'Art. 87a GG'. Returns the linked Begründungs-Abschnitte newest first, each with its 'BT-Drs.' Fundstelle, the reasoning text, and the other norms the same change amended ('target_norm_keys'). Complements legal_find_citing_decisions (how courts apply a norm) with the drafting intent behind it. Covers amendments since 1949 to German federal law (gesetze-im-internet corpus) only; an unknown or non-German provision returns no materials. Excerpts are prepared from the Bundestag-extracted text, not the original PDF.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`norm`	Yes	The legal provision, e.g. '§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 87a GG'.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of Begründung segments to return (default 10).
`jurisdiction`	No	Legal orders the call covers, one or more ('de', 'eu', 'de_by', 'de_nw', 'de_sn'). Materials exist for German federal law only: a scope without 'de' returns a hint instead of materials. Omitted, the account's legal order applies.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "description": "Jurisdiction of the legal document.",
+        "enum": [
+          "de",
+          "eu",
+          "de_by",
+          "de_sn",
+          "de_nw"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Legal orders the call covers, one or more ('de', 'eu', 'de_by', 'de_nw', 'de_sn'). Materials exist for German federal law only: a scope without 'de' returns a hint instead of materials. Omitted, the account's legal order applies."
+}

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the evidential weight ('strong evidence of legislative intent but not binding, statutory wording stays the outer limit'), the corpus boundary (gesetze-im-internet, post-1949 federal law), the failure mode, and a provenance caveat that excerpts come from Bundestag-extracted text rather than the original PDF.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then use cases, then input syntax, then return shape, then scope caveats. It is longer than strictly necessary — the evidential-weight and excerpt-origin sentences could be tightened — but nearly every sentence carries substantive 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies ordering (newest first), per-segment fields (BT-Drs. Fundstelle, reasoning text, target_norm_keys), and the empty-result case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents norm syntax, limit, and the jurisdiction fallback. The description's 'Pass a provision like § 823 BGB' and the jurisdiction-without-'de' hint largely restate schema content, adding little parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return the official legislative reasoning / Gesetzesbegründung ... for a specific German federal provision') and immediately frames the tool's doctrinal role (genetic/historical interpretation, ratio legis). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling legal_find_citing_decisions by contrasting drafting intent with how courts apply a norm.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the questions the tool answers (norm purpose, undefined terms, planwidrig gaps vs. deliberate silence, amendment intent) and names the alternative sibling it complements. It also states scope limits: German federal law since 1949 only, unknown or non-German provisions return no materials.

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

All PRIMAMCP 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.