Skip to main content
Glama
lawchat-oss

mcp-taiwan-legal-db

by lawchat-oss

query_regulation

Retrieve specific articles or full text of Taiwanese regulations from the national law database, including legislative history.

Instructions

查詢全國法規資料庫的法規條文。

可查詢單一條文、條號範圍、或法規全文。

Args: law_name: 法規名稱(如「民法」「勞動基準法」),會自動轉換為 pcode pcode: 法規代碼(如「B0000001」),若提供 law_name 可不填 article_no: 條號(如「184」「247-1」「15-1」),查詢單一條文 from_no: 起始條號(如「184」),查詢條號範圍時使用 to_no: 截止條號(如「198」),查詢條號範圍時使用 include_history: 是否包含修法沿革(使用者詢問修法歷程、修正時間、歷次修正內容時設為 True)

Returns: 包含法規條文的字典:law (pcode, name, status), articles, source_url, history(選填)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
law_nameNo
pcodeNo
article_noNo
from_noNo
to_noNo
include_historyNo
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that law_name is auto-converted to pcode and include_history condition, but given no annotations, lacks disclosure on read-only nature, authentication, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Well-structured with Args section and front-loaded purpose. About 150 words, efficient but could be slightly more concise. No wasted sentences.

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?

Covers all parameters, usage modes, and return structure. Lacks error handling or examples, but for a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, it is fairly complete.

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%, but the description explains each parameter's role, dependencies (pcode can be omitted if law_name provided), and usage, adding substantial value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it queries regulation articles from a national database, with specific options for single article, range, or full text. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_judgment or search_regulations.

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?

Provides clear context for use (querying regulation articles) and details usage modes (single, range, full text), but does not explicitly exclude alternative siblings or mention when not to use this tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lawchat-oss/mcp-taiwan-legal-db'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server