Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
SHAYOUWORLD

egov-law-mcp

by SHAYOUWORLD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

@codeagentjp/egov-law-mcp

Lokaler stdio-MCP-Server zum Durchsuchen japanischer Gesetze und zum Abrufen von Artikeltexten aus der e-Gov-Gesetzessuche.

Dieser Server ruft kein LLM auf. Er liefert lediglich quellengestützte Gesetzestexte und e-Gov-URLs zurück, damit Ihr MCP-Client (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor oder ein anderer Agent) die Originalquelle zitieren kann.

Die Designentscheidungen basieren auf der Lektüre der Open-Source-Lösung Lawsy-Custom-BQ der Digital Agency (veröffentlicht am 24.04.2026 als Teil der Gennai-Regierungs-KI-OSS-Veröffentlichung). Siehe die Designnotizen unter codeagent.jp.

Warum ein weiteres e-Gov-MCP?

Es gibt bereits ein egov-law-mcp auf npm von einem anderen Autor. Dieses Paket unterscheidet sich in drei Punkten:

  1. find_related_laws — sucht nach Durchführungsverordnungen (施行令) und Vorschriften (施行規則) für einen gegebenen Basisgesetznamen. Lawsy-Custom-BQ führt denselben Schritt serverseitig aus; dies ist nützlich, da Definitionen und delegierte Regeln oft außerhalb des übergeordneten Gesetzes liegen.

  2. Quellenangabe in jedem Tool-Ergebnis — jede Antwort enthält den Gesetzesnamen, die Gesetzes-ID, die Artikelnummer und die kanonische e-Gov-URL, sodass das aufrufende LLM das Zitat nicht weglassen kann.

  3. Einzelne .mjs-Datei, kein Build-Schritt — bin/egov-law-mcp.mjs läuft direkt unter Node 20+. Einfacher zu prüfen, kleinere Installation.

Related MCP server: Houki e-Gov MCP Server

Status

MVP. Die API-Oberfläche ist bewusst klein gehalten:

  • search_laws — Suche in aktuellen japanischen Gesetzen nach Stichworten.

  • get_article — Abrufen eines bestimmten Artikels aus einem Gesetz anhand der Gesetzes-ID oder Gesetzesnummer.

  • get_law — Abrufen grundlegender Metadaten und einer Textvorschau für ein Gesetz.

  • find_related_laws — Finden wahrscheinlich verwandter Durchführungsverordnungen und Vorschriften.

Anforderungen

  • Node.js 20 oder neuer

  • Netzwerkzugriff auf https://laws.e-gov.go.jp

Installation

Von npm:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "egov-law": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@codeagentjp/egov-law-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Aus dem Quellcode für die Entwicklung:

git clone https://github.com/SHAYOUWORLD/egov-law-mcp.git
cd egov-law-mcp
node bin/egov-law-mcp.mjs
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "egov-law": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/egov-law-mcp/bin/egov-law-mcp.mjs"]
    }
  }
}

Tools

search_laws

Durchsucht die e-Gov-Gesetzesliste.

{
  "keyword": "個人情報",
  "limit": 10
}

get_article

Ruft Artikeltext ab. Geben Sie entweder lawId oder lawNum an.

{
  "lawId": "503AC0000000035",
  "article": "2"
}

get_law

Ruft grundlegende Metadaten und eine Klartextvorschau eines Gesetzes ab.

{
  "lawId": "503AC0000000035",
  "previewChars": 3000
}

find_related_laws

Sucht nach Gesetzen, deren Namen mit einem Basisgesetznamen verwandt erscheinen, einschließlich Durchführungsverordnungen und Vorschriften.

{
  "lawName": "個人情報の保護に関する法律",
  "limit": 10
}

Datenquelle und Quellenangabe

Dieses Paket verwendet die e-Gov-Gesetzessuch-API:

Tool-Ergebnisse enthalten eine Quellenangabe. Wenn Sie Ausgaben, die auf diesem Paket basieren, veröffentlichen oder weitergeben, fügen Sie eine angemessene e-Gov-Quellenangabe hinzu.

Vorgeschlagene Quellenangabe:

出典: e-Gov法令検索（https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/）

Sicherheitshinweise

  • Dieses Paket ist ein Gesetzesnachschlagewerk, keine Rechtsberatung. Überprüfen Sie wichtige rechtliche Schlussfolgerungen auf der offiziellen e-Gov-Seite und konsultieren Sie bei Bedarf einen qualifizierten Fachmann.

  • Es führt keine Shell-Befehle aus.

  • Es schreibt JSON-RPC-Nachrichten nur nach stdout und protokolliert nur nach stderr.

  • Es ruft nur Endpunkte der e-Gov-Gesetzessuche ab.

Verwandtes

Lizenz

MIT © codeagent.jp

Available Tools

4 tools
get_articleB

Retrieve a specific article from e-Gov Law Search by law ID or law number.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawIdNoe-Gov law ID, for example 503AC0000000035.
lawNumNoJapanese law number. Either lawId or lawNum is required.
articleYesArticle number, for example 2.
paragraphNoOptional paragraph number.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'retrieve' without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling for missing articles.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it may be too brief for a tool with four parameters, missing important details about parameter dependencies.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits crucial context: it does not mention that the 'article' parameter is required, nor does it explain what the return value contains or how errors are handled.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'by law ID or law number' adds minimal value beyond the existing schema descriptions, which already specify parameter purposes and constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action (retrieve), resource (a specific article from e-Gov Law Search), and method (by law ID or law number). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_law and search_laws by targeting articles specifically.

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 implies usage context (retrieving a specific article) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives among sibling tools.

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

get_lawA

Retrieve law metadata and a plain text preview from e-Gov Law Search.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawIdNoe-Gov law ID. Either lawId or lawNum is required.
lawNumNoJapanese law number. Either lawId or lawNum is required.
previewCharsNoMaximum preview length. Defaults to 5000.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description implies a read operation but doesn't explicitly confirm idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states what is retrieved, which is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Single sentence, clear, no unnecessary words. Front-loads the key action and resource.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief but covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks details about return format or side effects, which could be useful for a tool with no output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'metdata and preview' is generic). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves law metadata and plain text preview from e-Gov. It specifies the source and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_laws (search) and get_article (specific article).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., need a law ID from search_laws). The description is silent on usage context.

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

search_lawsB

Search current Japanese laws from e-Gov Law Search by keyword.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYesKeyword to search in law name, law number, or law ID.
categoryNoLaw category. Defaults to all.
limitNoMaximum number of results. Defaults to 10.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'current' laws, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. The bare statement is insufficient for a search tool.

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?

A single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action and resource, perfect for quick comprehension.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and only three parameters, the description fails to explain return format, pagination, or result structure. Given the tool's complexity (search across categories), completeness is lacking.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The search logic (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity) is not explained, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb 'search', the resource 'current Japanese laws', and the source 'e-Gov Law Search by keyword', distinguishing it from siblings like find_related_laws and get_article which target specific relations or articles.

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 implies general keyword search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 4 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedfind_related_laws
    • First observedget_article
    • First observedget_law
    • First observedsearch_laws
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: searching laws, retrieving law metadata, retrieving specific articles, and finding related laws. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., search_laws, get_law, get_article, find_related_laws.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused legal search assistant. The count is neither excessive nor insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core operations for searching and retrieving Japanese laws and articles. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all laws, but for search purposes this is acceptable.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers