de-eli-mcp

de_rii_get_case_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the complete text of a German court decision from rechtsprechung-im-internet.de using its document ID or ZIP URL to retrieve the full ruling content.

Instructions

Fetch the full text of a decision from rechtsprechung-im-internet.de (RII).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	Yes	the RII document id from a ``de_rii_case_search`` result's ``doc_id`` (e.g. ``"JURE100055033"``), or a full ZIP URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ecli`	No
`norm`	No
`note`	No		Source: rechtsprechung-im-internet.de (RII), the official BMJ/juris case-law aggregator. Coverage per the Legal Data Hunter audit (worldwidelaw/legal-sources): BVerfG, BGH, BAG, BFH, BVerwG, BSG (+ BPatG) are complete for decisions RII has published; RII itself does not claim to hold every decision ever issued by these courts (courts publish selectively), so absence of a hit is not proof a decision does not exist.
`court`	No
`tenor`	No
`doc_id`	Yes
`doktyp`	No
`content`	No	Full text (Tatbestand + Gruende).
`eli_uri`	Yes
`leitsatz`	No
`byte_size`	No
`source_url`	Yes
`titelzeile`	No
`aktenzeichen`	No
`decision_date`	No
`spruchkoerper`	No
`human_readable_citation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.3Aug 27, 2026
Removedv0.4.3Jul 18, 2026
First observedv0.4.2Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds that the tool fetches full text from RII, which is useful context, but it does not disclose output format or any edge-case behavior. Given the rich annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and source. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 simple single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and meaningful annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that the input originates from de_rii_case_search, but that information is already present in the schema's parameter description.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema provides 100% coverage for doc_id, including its origin and example format. The main description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('full text of a decision from rechtsprech-im-internet.de'). It clearly identifies the data source and content type, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like de_get_decision_text or de_get_text beyond the RII source name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The tool name and the doc_id description hint at usage after de_rii_case_search, but the main description itself offers no guidance on choosing this tool over sibling decision-text tools.

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

Deploy Server