Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
china-law-mcp

china-law-mcp

by THUboran
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_article

Retrieves the original text of a Chinese law article by law name and article number. Accepts abbreviations and Chinese or Arabic numerals; returns the provision or None.

Instructions

按法律名与条号取条文原文。

Args: law: 法律名，支持简称，如「民法典」「中华人民共和国刑法」。 article_no: 条号，中文或阿拉伯数字均可，如「1254」「第一千二百五十四条」。

Returns: 找到则返回条文（含所属编章、部门法、时效状态），否则 None。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "law": "<law>",
      "article_no": "<article_no>"
    },
    "name": "get_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawYes
article_noYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that found articles include 编章, 部门法, and 时效状态, and that the tool returns None when not found, but it does not state read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or other operational behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then uses compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples clarify accepted input formats without waste.

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?

For a two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers both inputs and the fallback return behavior. It lacks routing guidance to sibling tools, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting both parameters: law supports abbreviations with examples, and article_no accepts Chinese or Arabic numerals with examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve the original text of a legal article by law name and article number. This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_statutes or verify_citation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_statutes or other siblings, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the required parameters.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools