Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Open Legal Data (Germany)

by io.openlegaldata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Show connection and rate limit

whoami
Read-onlyIdempotent

Show who you are connected as and your remaining request budget.

    Call this before a long task to check how many requests are left,
    or to learn how to get a larger budget. Every HTTP request to the
    MCP server counts against the budget, including this call; once
    nothing is left, requests (this one too) are rejected with HTTP 429
    until the window frees up. Returns:

    - ``authenticated``: whether the connection is signed in.
    - ``user``: ``username`` and ``profile_complete``, or null.
    - ``auth_method``: ``oauth``, ``api_token``, ``legacy_token`` or
      ``session``; null when anonymous.
    - ``rate_limit``: ``tier`` (``anonymous``, ``registered``,
      ``enriched`` or ``custom``), ``bucket`` (``shared`` when all
      anonymous users of this connector share one budget, ``ip`` or
      ``user``), ``limit`` per ``window_seconds``, ``used``,
      ``remaining``, and ``retry_after_seconds`` once nothing is left.
      Signed-in users share one budget between MCP and the REST API.
    - ``upgrade``: how to get a larger budget (``action``, ``url``,
      ``limit``, ``message``), or null. Pass the ``message`` and
      ``url`` on to the user when the budget is too small for the task.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the cost of the call against the shared budget, the HTTP 429 rejection behavior once exhausted, the tier/bucket semantics including that anonymous users share one connector-wide bucket and signed-in users share MCP+REST budget, and the presence of upgrade instructions to relay to the user.

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 purpose and call-timing, then a bulleted return breakdown that mirrors the actual response shape. The return list is long, but with no output schema it is load-bearing rather than padding. Slight verbosity in the nested rate_limit enumeration keeps it off a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does, field by field, including null cases ('null when anonymous') and conditional fields ('retry_after_seconds once nothing is left'). All the identity, budget, and upgrade behavior an agent needs before calling is present.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already states; baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 two concrete resources: connection identity ('show who you are connected as') and remaining request budget. Neither overlaps with the sibling catalog of case/law lookup tools, so an agent can rule it in or out 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Call this before a long task to check how many requests are left, or to learn how to get a larger budget' gives an explicit trigger condition and an explicit second purpose. It also warns that the call itself consumes budget, which is a genuine usage constraint. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, but no sibling performs this function.

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

All Open Legal Data (Germany) 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