Skip to main content
Glama
metaneutrons

German Legal MCP Server

by metaneutrons

legis:states

Retrieve all 17 German jurisdictions (federal and state) with their backend systems to access legal databases for comprehensive research.

Instructions

List all 17 available German jurisdictions (BUND + 16 Bundesländer) with their backends.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The 'handleStates' method implementation that returns a markdown table of available state jurisdictions.
    private handleStates(): ToolResult {
      const jportalStates = JPORTAL_STATES;
      const lines = [
        '| State | Status | Backend |',
        '|-------|--------|---------|',
        '| BUND | ✅ Available | gesetze-im-internet.de |',
        ...jportalStates.map((s) => `| ${s} | ✅ Available | jportal REST API |`),
        '| NI | ✅ Available | voris.wolterskluwer-online.de |',
        '| BY | ✅ Available | gesetze-bayern.de |',
        '| BB | ✅ Available | bravors.brandenburg.de |',
        '| SN | ✅ Available | revosax.sachsen.de |',
        '| HB | ✅ Available | transparenz.bremen.de |',
        '| NW | ✅ Available | recht.nrw.de |',
      ];
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: lines.join('\n') }] };
    }
  • Routing of the 'legis:states' tool call to the 'handleStates' handler.
    if (toolName === 'legis:states') return this.handleStates();
  • Tool definition registration for 'legis:states'.
    name: 'legis:states',
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully sets expectations by specifying the exact count (17) and revealing that 'backends' are included in the response, which helps the agent understand this returns metadata rather than just names.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every phrase earns its place: the action ('List'), scope ('all 17'), domain ('German jurisdictions'), clarification ('BUND + 16 Bundesländer'), and return value detail ('with their backends').

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 adequately compensates by indicating the return value includes both jurisdictions and their backends. For a simple enumeration tool, this is sufficient context, though explicitly mentioning the return format (e.g., array of objects) would strengthen it further.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per the scoring guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately indicates no filtering is possible ('List all'), confirming the parameter-less nature of the call.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('German jurisdictions') and precise scope ('17... BUND + 16 Bundesländer'). It effectively distinguishes this discovery tool from content-retrieval siblings like legis:get and legis:search by focusing on jurisdiction enumeration rather than document access.

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?

While the description implies this is a discovery tool for available jurisdictions, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it (e.g., 'Call this first to obtain valid jurisdiction codes before using legis:get') or when not to use it. The relationship to sibling tools is clear from naming but not stated.

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