Skip to main content
Glama
lawchat-oss

mcp-taiwan-legal-db

by lawchat-oss
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_interpretation

Retrieve Taiwan Constitutional Court interpretations and rulings by case number, with optional reasoning, opinion text, or keyword snippets.

Instructions

取得司法院大法官解釋（釋字第 1-813 號）或憲法法庭裁判（憲判字）全文。

預設層（字號/日期/爭點/解釋文）從本地快取即時回傳，無需連網。 理由書/意見書支援全文模式與關鍵字片段模式。

case_id 格式（自動解析）：「釋字第748號」「釋字748」「748」 「111年憲判字第1號」「111憲判1」

Args: case_id: 解釋/裁判字號字串 include_reasoning: 回傳理由書全文 reasoning_keyword: 在理由書中搜尋關鍵字並回片段（覆蓋 include_reasoning） include_opinions: 回傳意見書全文 opinions_keyword: 在意見書中搜尋關鍵字並回片段 opinion_document: 只取標題含此字串的意見書全文（例如大法官姓名「許宗力」）； 回傳的 opinion_documents 列出每份的標題、官網 PDF 連結與字數 opinions_offset: 意見書全文從第幾字開始回傳（預設 0）

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_idYes
opinions_offsetNo
include_opinionsNo
opinion_documentNo
opinions_keywordNo
include_reasoningNo
reasoning_keywordNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / opinion_document
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Opinion Document",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / opinions_offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "title": "Opinions Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses cache-only default behavior (no network), the two retrieval modes, keyword override precedence (reasoning_keyword covers include_reasoning), and even names a returned field (opinion_documents with titles, court PDF links, word counts). It omits error/not-found behavior for invalid case ids, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then case_id formats, then per-argument notes; each line earns its place. Slight redundancy from restating parameter defaults that also appear in the schema, and the bilingual framing adds length, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies modes, caching behavior, argument semantics, and a return-field hint. The main gap is failure handling for unrecognized case ids, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the seven params is documented in the Args block, including precedence rules ('reasoning_keyword overrides include_reasoning'), filtering semantics for opinion_document, and the default/purpose of opinions_offset. The case_id format examples (釋字第748號 / 釋字748 / 748 / 111年憲判字第1號) are especially valuable given the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb (取得/fetch full text) and precise resource (大法官解釋 釋字 1-813號 / 憲法法庭裁判 憲判字), with an explicit coverage range. It is clearly the retrieval counterpart to the sibling search_interpretations, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the layered behavior (default layer served instantly from local cache with no network) and when to use the reasoning/opinion modes versus keyword snippet modes. It does not explicitly rate itself against search_interpretations or get_constitutional_case_file, but the context for choosing modes is clear.

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