Skip to main content
Glama
Honeyfield-Org

ris-mcp

by Honeyfield-Org
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Judikatur durchsuchen

ris_judikatur
Read-only

Search Austrian court decisions from the official legal database. Filter by jurisdiction, court, legal norm, date, and document type to find relevant case law.

Instructions

Search Austrian court decisions (Judikatur).

Use this tool to find court decisions from Austrian courts. Choose the jurisdiction via "gerichtsbarkeit" (which court system to search).

RIS distinguishes two document kinds, controlled by "dokumenttyp":

  • Rechtssatz: abstract legal principle / headnote (Leitsatz) distilled from a decision

  • Entscheidungstext: the full decision text including reasoning (Begruendung) The default "beide" searches both for the most complete results.

Example queries:

  • gerichtsbarkeit="Vfgh", suchworte="Grundrecht" -> Constitutional Court decisions

  • suchworte="Schadenersatz", gericht="OGH" -> Only Supreme Court (OGH) decisions

  • norm="1295 ABGB" -> Which decisions cite §1295 ABGB?

  • gerichtsbarkeit="Justiz", fachgebiet="Arbeitsrecht", sortierung="datum_ab" -> Newest labor-law decisions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
normNoSearch by legal norm (e.g., "1319a ABGB")
limitNoResults per page: 10, 20, 50, or 100 (default: 20)
seiteNoPage number
gerichtNoFilter by the actual court within the jurisdiction (e.g., "OGH", "OLG Wien"). Applies to gerichtsbarkeit="Justiz".
suchworteNoFull-text search in decisions
fachgebietNoSubject area of OGH case law (e.g., "Arbeitsrecht", "Insolvenzrecht"). Applies to gerichtsbarkeit="Justiz" and only matches full decision texts (requires dokumenttyp "entscheidungstext" or "beide").
sortierungNoSort by decision date: "datum_auf" (oldest first) or "datum_ab" (newest first).
dokumenttypNoWhich document kind to search: "rechtssatz" (abstract headnotes only), "entscheidungstext" (full decision texts only), or "beide" (both, default). The RIS API otherwise searches only Rechtssätze.beide
rechtsgebietNoBroad legal area: "Zivilrecht" or "Strafrecht". Applies to gerichtsbarkeit="Justiz".
geschaeftszahlNoCase number (e.g., "5Ob234/20b")
gerichtsbarkeitNoCourt system / data collection to search (maps to the RIS "Applikation"): "Justiz" (OGH/OLG/LG/BG, default), "Vfgh" (Constitutional), "Vwgh" (Administrative), "Bvwg", "Lvwg", "Dsk" (Data Protection), "AsylGH", "Normenliste", "Pvak", "Gbk", "Dok", plus historical (dissolved 2014, stock still searchable): "Verg", "Uvs", "Ubas", "Umse", "Bks"Justiz
response_formatNo"markdown" or "json"markdown
sammlungsnummerNoCollection number: VfSlg (gerichtsbarkeit="Vfgh") or VwSlg (gerichtsbarkeit="Vwgh").
entscheidungsartNoType of decision. Allowed values differ by jurisdiction, e.g. Vfgh/Vwgh/Bvwg: "Beschluss", "Erkenntnis"; Lvwg also "Bescheid"; Justiz: "Verstärkter Senat", "Ordentliche Erledigung (Sachentscheidung)".
entscheidungsdatum_bisNoDecision date to (YYYY-MM-DD)
entscheidungsdatum_vonNoDecision date from (YYYY-MM-DD)

Tool Definition Quality

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds behavioral context: explains default document kind ('beide'), that the RIS API otherwise searches only Rechtssätze, and how the search semantics work across jurisdictions. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, uses bullet points for clarity, and includes examples. It is slightly lengthy but every part serves a purpose, with no redundant sentences. Structure is logical.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity (16 parameters, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive guidance on how to search and what parameters to use. It mentions response_format for output type. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned data, which would be helpful for a search tool.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the two key concepts (dokumenttyp, gerichtsbarkeit) and demonstrating parameter usage through examples. It does not systematically list parameters, but the examples effectively illustrate their semantics.

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 clearly states it searches Austrian court decisions, distinguishes between two document kinds (Rechtssatz vs Entscheidungstext), and provides example queries. It differentiates from sibling tools which target other legal domains (e.g., ris_bundesrecht for legislation).

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how to choose parameters like gerichtsbarkeit and dokumenttyp. It includes example queries covering various use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for laws instead of decisions), though sibling tools make this clear.

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