Türk Hukuku İçtihat MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to Türk Hukuku İçtihat MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceStatute & article text (mevzuat.gov.tr) and court decisions (UYAP Emsal, Council of State, Constitutional Court), with their citation, source, live. It works as long as the official sources remain reachable.452 PyPI2MIT
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables programmatic access to Turkish legislation from mevzuat.gov.tr, allowing search, full-text retrieval, and Boolean search within articles.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceProvides programmatic access to the Turkish Ministry of Justice Legislation Information System (mevzuat.gov.tr). It enables searching for legislation, navigating hierarchical article structures, and retrieving article content in Markdown format.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides programmatic access to Turkey's Ministry of Justice Legislation Information System (mevzuat.gov.tr), enabling users to search legislation, retrieve article hierarchies, and fetch article contents in Markdown format through natural language.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible AI clients to research official Turkish legal sources locally by searching judicial decisions, legislation, and Constitutional Court decisions, and by retrieving legal documents, individual articles, and legislation structures.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceConnects AI clients to public Turkish legislation and court/board decisions, letting users search and retrieve legal texts, case law, and institutional rulings, and generate petition drafts and UYAP UDF files.20MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'ictihat_ara' searches for precedents and returns identifiers, while 'karar_getir' retrieves the full text using those identifiers. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent Turkish pattern of noun_verb ('karar_getir' and 'ictihat_ara'), using underscores and clear, descriptive terms.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriately scoped for the core functionality of searching and retrieving full-text decisions. It is slightly below the typical range but still reasonable.
The tools cover the essential lifecycle of legal precedent retrieval: search with filtering and pagination, then get full text. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.