airealty-lawmcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to airealty-lawmcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables searching and retrieving Korean statutes, precedents, and constitutional court decisions via MCP, using the National Law Information Center API.7,934 npm1MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants and terminals to retrieve and cross-reference Korean legal sources through 10 tools built on 42 Ministry of Government Legislation APIs, covering statutes, precedents, administrative rules, ordinances, treaties, and interpretations. Adds hallucination-resistant citation verification, article impact graphs, point-in-time diffing of in-force versions, case citator checks, and applicable-law-at-the-time analysis.107,934 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to search and retrieve Korean laws, regulations, administrative rules, legal interpretations, and precedents via official APIs for legal review workflows.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceLets AI agents query South Korea's official statute database — searching laws and ordinances by title, pulling a single article (조문) with its own effective date, or tracing a statute's full revision history — using the caller's own Open API key. Text is returned in Korean only, with support for branch numbering like 제4조의2 and automatic retries against unstable upstream responses.270 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables natural language search and retrieval of Korean laws, precedents, administrative rules, and legal terms, with deep legal chain analysis and full-text access. Supports stdio and streamable-http transports for local and remote deployment.10MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI clients to search and retrieve official legal documents from the Ministry of Government Legislation's Open API — current and historical statutes, administrative rules, local ordinances, court precedents, constitutional decisions, and legal interpretations — including article-level text lookup. Runs locally over stdio with paginated retrieval of long responses and no external database or web UI required.3MIT
TDQS
Scored across 12 tools
The tools mostly target distinct resources and actions: source search vs. source retrieval, statute finding vs. article retrieval vs. outline/history/annex, citation auditing vs. precedent tracing, and contract risk scanning. The main mild overlap is that research_run and toolbox act as orchestration/catalog layers that conceptually touch specialized tools, but their descriptions still make roles clear.
All names use lowercase snake_case, and most follow a readable noun_verb pattern such as source_search, statute_find, article_get, annex_get, source_get, citation_audit, and precedent_trace. Exceptions such as statute_history, statute_outline, contract_risk_scan, and toolbox are still clear, so this is a minor deviation rather than inconsistency.
Twelve tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a legal research server and each tool covers a distinct facet: search, retrieval, statute structure, amendment history, annexes, citation audit, precedent tracing, contract scanning, and orchestration. No tool appears redundant or excessive for the stated scope.
The surface broadly covers the legal research lifecycle: statute discovery, article retrieval, annexes, amendment history, source search/retrieval, citation auditing, precedent tracing, contract risk scanning, and auxiliary features via toolbox. Minor gaps such as direct legal-term definitions or amendment alerts are relegated to toolbox rather than first-class tools, but core workflows have no dead ends.