Skip to main content
Glama
metaneutrons

German Legal MCP Server

by metaneutrons

dip:search_vorgang

Search German legislative processes (Vorgänge) in DIP to track laws through parliament, find related documents, and monitor status with filters for type, period, and dates.

Instructions

Search legislative processes (Vorgänge) in DIP. Returns Gesetzgebungsvorgänge with status and linked Drucksachen-Nummern. Useful for tracking a law through the legislative process or finding all related documents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch keyword (matched against title)
vorgangstypNoType filter: "Gesetzgebung", "Schriftliche Frage", "EU-Vorlage", etc.
wahlperiodeNoLegislative period (e.g., 20, 21)
date_startNoStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
date_endNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD)
limitYesMax results (default: 10)

Implementation Reference

  • The handleSearchVorgang function implements the actual logic for the 'dip:search_vorgang' tool.
    export async function handleSearchVorgang(client: DipClient, args: Record<string, unknown>): Promise<ToolResult> {
      const { query, vorgangstyp, wahlperiode, date_start, date_end, limit = 10 } = args as {
        query: string; vorgangstyp?: string; wahlperiode?: number;
        date_start?: string; date_end?: string; limit?: number;
      };
    
      const params: Record<string, string | number> = { 'f.titel': query, rows: limit };
      if (vorgangstyp) params['f.vorgangstyp'] = vorgangstyp;
      if (wahlperiode) params['f.wahlperiode'] = wahlperiode;
      if (date_start) params['f.datum.start'] = date_start;
      if (date_end) params['f.datum.end'] = date_end;
    
      const result = await client.searchVorgang(params);
      const text = `${result.numFound} Vorgänge\n\n${result.documents.map(formatVorgang).join('\n\n---\n\n')}`;
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text }] };
    }
  • Registration of the 'dip:search_vorgang' tool including its schema definition.
    name: 'dip:search_vorgang',
    description:
      'Search legislative processes (Vorgänge) in DIP. Returns Gesetzgebungsvorgänge with status and linked Drucksachen-Nummern. ' +
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return format ('Gesetzgebungsvorgänge with status and linked Drucksachen-Nummern'), which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only status), rate limits, or pagination behavior that would be necessary for a complete behavioral profile.

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?

Three efficiently structured sentences: purpose declaration, return value specification, and use case guidance. No redundancy or filler content; every sentence delivers distinct information necessary for tool selection.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately compensates by describing what the tool returns. It handles the domain complexity (German legislative procedures) adequately, though it assumes familiarity with the DIP acronym and could explicitly state the read-only nature of the operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured documentation already fully explains all 6 parameters (query, vorgangstyp, wahlperiode, dates, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, examples, or usage notes beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool searches 'legislative processes (Vorgänge) in DIP' with specific German parliamentary terminology, and mentions it returns 'Gesetzgebungsvorgänge'. It distinguishes from dip:search_plenarprotokoll by focusing on legislative processes rather than parliamentary protocols, but does not explicitly differentiate from the generic dip:search sibling.

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?

Provides use cases ('Useful for tracking a law through the legislative process or finding all related documents') which imply when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or when to prefer siblings like dip:search or dip:get over this specialized search.

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/metaneutrons/german-legal-mcp'

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