Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chinese-law-mcp

chinese-law-mcp

by lttxzmj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to chinese-law-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • fakao-mcp

      mleen
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for Chinese bar exam (法考) preparation with 2,027 past questions, chapter exercises, and spaced repetition. Enables AI agents to search, practice, and review legal exam questions.
      -

    • DeepLaw

      Eysn0130
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A read-only Chinese legal evidence MCP server that provides deterministic retrieval of authentic legal sources with chain-of-custody receipts, designed for Codex, Claude Code, and OpenCode.
      1
      6
      Apache 2.0

    • AI Legal Consultation

      kdemm3158-hash
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for evidence-based Chinese legal consultation. It routes labor law questions to a knowledge base and other queries to public search, returning answers with citations and fallback reasons.
      1
      -

    • HKLaw MCP

      keatko
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A stateless MCP server for Hong Kong legal research, offering tools to analyze legal intent, search official HKeL statutes, fetch current law metadata, and check source status.
      -

    • fr-eli-mcp

      matematicsolutions
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for querying French legislation and case law via the Legifrance API, enabling search and retrieval of laws, codes, and court decisions with verifiable citations.
      8
      53 PyPI
      2
      Apache 2.0

    This server cannot be deployed

    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    search_laws (find a law by name) and search_in_law (keyword search within one law's articles) are superficially similar but the descriptions clearly distinguish scope: one operates over the catalog, the other within a single document. get_article is clearly distinct as a targeted retrieval. Minor risk of misselection only when an agent doesn't read carefully.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All three use snake_case verb_noun-ish patterns: search_laws, get_article, search_in_law. The phrasing between search_laws and search_in_law is slightly asymmetric (plural target vs prepositional scope), but the convention is otherwise predictable and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    Three tools is on the thin side for a legal research server covering 412 laws; there's little room for browsing, listing, or metadata exploration. It is not extreme, but it feels minimal rather than well-scoped.

    Completeness3/5

    Core retrieval (find law, get article, keyword-in-law) is covered, but notable gaps exist: no way to list/enumerate laws, browse by chapter or category, filter by effective date/domain, or follow cross-references. Agents needing discovery beyond a name search will hit a dead end.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessSyncing

    Resources