Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
SHAYOUWORLD

egov-law-mcp

by SHAYOUWORLD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

@codeagentjp/egov-law-mcp

用于搜索日本法律并从 e-Gov 法令检索 获取条文文本的本地 stdio MCP 服务器。

本服务器不调用 LLM。它仅返回带有来源支持的法律数据和 e-Gov URL，以便您的 MCP 客户端（Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 或任何其他代理）能够引用原始来源。

本设计的选择参考了数字厅开源的 Lawsy-Custom-BQ（作为 2026-04-24 政府 AI “源内” OSS 发布的一部分）。设计说明请参阅 codeagent.jp。

为什么需要另一个 e-Gov MCP

npm 上已有另一位作者开发的 egov-law-mcp。本包在以下三个方面有所不同：

  1. find_related_laws — 针对给定的基础法律名称查找施行令（施行令）和施行规则（施行规则）。Lawsy-Custom-BQ 在服务器端也有相同的步骤；这很有用，因为定义和授权规则通常存在于母法之外。

  2. 每个工具结果中内置来源归属 — 每次响应都包含法律名称、法律 ID、条文编号和规范的 e-Gov URL，因此调用它的 LLM 无法丢弃引用。

  3. 单文件 .mjs，无需构建步骤 — bin/egov-law-mcp.mjs 可直接在 Node 20+ 环境下运行。更易于审计，安装包更小。

Related MCP server: Houki e-Gov MCP Server

状态

MVP 版本。API 接口有意保持精简：

  • search_laws — 按关键词搜索当前的日本法律。

  • get_article — 通过法律 ID 或法律编号从法律中检索特定条文。

  • get_law — 检索法律的基本元数据和文本预览。

  • find_related_laws — 查找看起来与基础法律名称相关的施行令及施行规则。

要求

  • Node.js 20 或更高版本

  • 可访问 https://laws.e-gov.go.jp 的网络环境

安装

通过 npm 安装：

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

从源码开发安装：

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"]
    }
  }
}

工具

search_laws

搜索 e-Gov 法律列表。

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

get_article

检索条文文本。提供 lawId 或 lawNum。

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

get_law

检索法律的基本元数据和纯文本预览。

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

find_related_laws

搜索名称与基础法律名称相关的法律，包括施行令及施行规则。

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

数据来源与归属

本包使用 e-Gov 法令检索 API：

工具结果包含来源归属。当您发布或重新分发基于本包的输出时，请包含适当的 e-Gov 来源归属。

建议的归属方式：

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

安全说明

  • 本包是一个法律参考工具，而非法律建议。请对照官方 e-Gov 页面核实重要的法律结论，并在必要时咨询合格的专业人士。

  • 它不执行 shell 命令。

  • 它仅向 stdout 写入 JSON-RPC 消息，仅向 stderr 记录日志。

  • 它仅抓取 e-Gov 法令检索的端点。

相关内容

许可证

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