Hungary Legal Research MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
Official-source legal research, multi-tier judicial hierarchy search (First Instance, Regional/Cantonal/Appellate, and Supreme/Constitutional courts), and citation verification MCP server for Hungary (HU).
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| logging | {} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search_legislationC | Search Hungary (HU) national legislation (statutes, acts, codes, regulations) via Nemzeti Jogszabálytár (njt.hu) and European/International legal registries. |
| search_case_lawC | Search Hungary (HU) court decisions and binding precedents via Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteménye (birosag.hu / eakta.birosag.hu) & Kúria (Supported courts: Kúria (Supreme Court of Hungary), Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court), Ítélőtáblák). |
| get_legal_document_markdownA | Retrieve full Markdown text of a legislation document or court judgment from Hungary (HU) by its URL or official identifier. |
| list_court_hierarchyA | Return the complete step-by-step multi-tier judicial hierarchy for Hungary (HU): Tier 1 (First Instance / Trial / Municipal / District Courts), Tier 2 (Regional / Cantonal / County / Appellate Courts), Tier 3 (Supreme / Cassation / Constitutional Courts), and all official court sub-portals. |
| search_tiered_court_decisionsA | Search court decisions in Hungary (HU) filtered by specific judicial tier or regional/cantonal/appellate court. Supports Tier 1 (first_instance), Tier 2 (appellate_regional — including Cantonal/Regional/County/Circuit courts), and Tier 3 (supreme_constitutional), or a specific sub-portal key from list_court_hierarchy. |
| verify_citationA | No-Hallucination Citation Verifier for Hungary (HU). Validates format and live existence of legal citations (e.g., 'ECLI:HU:KURI:2024:100 or 2013. évi V. törvény') against official Hungary and ECLI/ELI registries to prevent AI-hallucinated citations. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Most tools target clearly different resources/actions: legislation search, case-law search, full-text retrieval, court hierarchy listing, and citation verification. The one weak boundary is search_case_law vs search_tiered_court_decisions, which both search Hungarian court decisions; the tier/sub-portal filtering distinguishes them, but an agent could plausibly pick either first. Descriptions help resolve this, so it is a minor rather than serious ambiguity.
All six names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_*, get_*, list_*, verify_*). The verbs accurately signal the operation type and vocabulary is uniform across the set.
Six tools is well within a comfortable range for a legal research server, and each covers a distinct step in the research workflow (search primary law, search case law, tiered search, fetch text, map courts, verify citations). No tool feels redundant or superfluous.
The surface covers the core research lifecycle: finding legislation, finding case law (with tier filtering), retrieving full text, understanding court structure, and verifying citations against hallucinations. Minor gaps exist, such as no consolidated/versioned statute lookup, no cross-reference or citator tool showing what cites a given case, and no browsing by topic or date range, but agents can work around these via the search tools.