Skip to main content
Glama

jp_get_law

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve metadata for Japanese laws from e-Gov using a law ID. Access official legislation details without body text.

Instructions

Fetch metadata for a law by its e-Gov law_id (no body text).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
law_idYese.g. ``"129AC0000000089"`` (the Civil Code).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
law_idYes
eli_uriNo
law_numNo
eli_noteNoJapan has not deployed ELI. eli_uri is the durable e-Gov viewer URL (https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/{law_id}), keyed on the stable law_id e-Gov assigns to every law - never invented.
law_typeNo
law_titleNo
source_urlNo
dataset_noteNoe-Gov (laws.e-gov.go.jp) is Japan's official portal for national legislation, run by the Digital Agency. Japan has no ELI scheme; eli_uri carries the durable e-Gov viewer URL keyed on law_id (see eli_note). Discover by law_title (jp_search_laws) or full-text keyword (jp_search_by_keyword), then fetch metadata or a specific article by law_id.
amendment_law_idNo
promulgation_dateNo
human_readable_citationNo
amendment_enforcement_dateNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds that only metadata (not body text) is returned, which is useful beyond annotations, but no other behaviors (e.g., error handling) are disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description is mostly complete. Could mention what metadata includes, but output schema likely compensates.

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?

Schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a good description. Tool description repeats the parameter name and format, adding minimal extra semantics. Baseline 3 met.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch metadata for a law' using a specific identifier, and explicitly distinguishes from body text, differentiating it from sibling tools like jp_get_full_text.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description implies usage for metadata only, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., jp_get_full_text for body text). No when-not advice provided.

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/matematicsolutions/jp-eli-mcp'

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