Skip to main content
Glama

ris_judikatur

Search Austrian court decisions by keywords, legal norms, case numbers, or date ranges to find relevant legal precedents from various courts.

Instructions

Search Austrian court decisions (Judikatur).

Use this tool to find court decisions from Austrian courts.

Example: gericht="Vfgh", suchworte="Grundrecht"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
suchworteNoFull-text search in decisions
gerichtNoCourt - "Justiz" (OGH/OLG/LG, default), "Vfgh" (Constitutional), "Vwgh" (Administrative), "Bvwg", "Lvwg", "Dsk" (Data Protection), "AsylGH" (historical), "Normenliste", "Pvak", "Gbk", "Dok"Justiz
normNoSearch by legal norm (e.g., "1319a ABGB")
geschaeftszahlNoCase number (e.g., "5Ob234/20b")
entscheidungsdatum_vonNoDecision date from (YYYY-MM-DD)
entscheidungsdatum_bisNoDecision date to (YYYY-MM-DD)
seiteNoPage number
limitNoResults per page
response_formatNo"markdown" or "json"markdown

Implementation Reference

  • The registration of the ris_judikatur tool within the MCP server.
    export function registerJudikaturTool(server: McpServer): void {
      server.tool(
        'ris_judikatur',
        `Search Austrian court decisions (Judikatur).
    
    Use this tool to find court decisions from Austrian courts.
    
    Example: gericht="Vfgh", suchworte="Grundrecht"`,
        {
          suchworte: z.string().max(1000).optional().describe('Full-text search in decisions'),
          gericht: JudikaturGerichtSchema.default('Justiz').describe(
            'Court - "Justiz" (OGH/OLG/LG, default), "Vfgh" (Constitutional), "Vwgh" (Administrative), "Bvwg", "Lvwg", "Dsk" (Data Protection), "AsylGH" (historical), "Normenliste", "Pvak", "Gbk", "Dok"',
          ),
          norm: z.string().max(500).optional().describe('Search by legal norm (e.g., "1319a ABGB")'),
          geschaeftszahl: z.string().max(200).optional().describe('Case number (e.g., "5Ob234/20b")'),
          entscheidungsdatum_von: DateSchema.optional().describe('Decision date from (YYYY-MM-DD)'),
          entscheidungsdatum_bis: DateSchema.optional().describe('Decision date to (YYYY-MM-DD)'),
          seite: z.number().default(1).describe('Page number'),
          limit: z.number().default(20).describe('Results per page'),
          response_format: z
            .enum(['markdown', 'json'])
            .default('markdown')
            .describe('"markdown" or "json"'),
        },
        async (args) => {
          const {
            suchworte,
            gericht,
            norm,
            geschaeftszahl,
            entscheidungsdatum_von,
            entscheidungsdatum_bis,
            seite,
            limit,
            response_format,
          } = args;
    
          if (!hasAnyParam(args, ['suchworte', 'norm', 'geschaeftszahl'])) {
            return createValidationErrorResponse([
              'suchworte` fuer Volltextsuche',
              'norm` fuer Suche nach Rechtsnorm',
              'geschaeftszahl` fuer Suche nach Geschaeftszahl',
            ]);
          }
    
          const params = buildBaseParams(gericht, limit, seite);
          addOptionalParams(params, [
            [suchworte, 'Suchworte'],
            [norm, 'Norm'],
            [geschaeftszahl, 'Geschaeftszahl'],
            [entscheidungsdatum_von, 'EntscheidungsdatumVon'],
            [entscheidungsdatum_bis, 'EntscheidungsdatumBis'],
          ]);
    
          return executeSearchTool(searchJudikatur, params, response_format);
        },
      );
    }
  • The Zod schema definition for input parameters of the ris_judikatur tool.
    {
      suchworte: z.string().max(1000).optional().describe('Full-text search in decisions'),
      gericht: JudikaturGerichtSchema.default('Justiz').describe(
        'Court - "Justiz" (OGH/OLG/LG, default), "Vfgh" (Constitutional), "Vwgh" (Administrative), "Bvwg", "Lvwg", "Dsk" (Data Protection), "AsylGH" (historical), "Normenliste", "Pvak", "Gbk", "Dok"',
      ),
      norm: z.string().max(500).optional().describe('Search by legal norm (e.g., "1319a ABGB")'),
      geschaeftszahl: z.string().max(200).optional().describe('Case number (e.g., "5Ob234/20b")'),
      entscheidungsdatum_von: DateSchema.optional().describe('Decision date from (YYYY-MM-DD)'),
      entscheidungsdatum_bis: DateSchema.optional().describe('Decision date to (YYYY-MM-DD)'),
      seite: z.number().default(1).describe('Page number'),
      limit: z.number().default(20).describe('Results per page'),
      response_format: z
        .enum(['markdown', 'json'])
        .default('markdown')
        .describe('"markdown" or "json"'),
    },
  • The handler function that implements the logic for ris_judikatur.
    async (args) => {
      const {
        suchworte,
        gericht,
        norm,
        geschaeftszahl,
        entscheidungsdatum_von,
        entscheidungsdatum_bis,
        seite,
        limit,
        response_format,
      } = args;
    
      if (!hasAnyParam(args, ['suchworte', 'norm', 'geschaeftszahl'])) {
        return createValidationErrorResponse([
          'suchworte` fuer Volltextsuche',
          'norm` fuer Suche nach Rechtsnorm',
          'geschaeftszahl` fuer Suche nach Geschaeftszahl',
        ]);
      }
    
      const params = buildBaseParams(gericht, limit, seite);
      addOptionalParams(params, [
        [suchworte, 'Suchworte'],
        [norm, 'Norm'],
        [geschaeftszahl, 'Geschaeftszahl'],
        [entscheidungsdatum_von, 'EntscheidungsdatumVon'],
        [entscheidungsdatum_bis, 'EntscheidungsdatumBis'],
      ]);
    
      return executeSearchTool(searchJudikatur, params, response_format);
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for searching, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'seite' and 'limit' parameters in schema), or what happens with no results. The example adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 description is appropriately sized with three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a usage directive, and an example. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the example could be slightly more informative, and there's minor redundancy between the first two sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and provides an example, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or advanced usage scenarios. The high schema coverage helps, but for a search tool with many parameters and no output schema, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond this, providing only an example that hints at usage for 'suchworte' and 'gericht'. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or additional semantics, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Austrian court decisions (Judikatur).' It specifies both the verb ('search') and resource ('Austrian court decisions'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ris_dokument' or 'ris_history' that might also involve legal document searches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides basic usage context with 'Use this tool to find court decisions from Austrian courts' and includes an example, which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like 'ris_dokument' or 'ris_history' from the sibling list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Honeyfield-Org/ris-mcp-ts'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server