Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to lawink-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables searching, comparing, and analyzing Korean laws and public institution regulations through natural language, integrating 110 MCP tools covering statutes, precedents, and internal rules.
      100
      84 npm
      22
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server providing comprehensive Korean legal data access (laws, precedents, regulations, ordinances) with citation verification, temporal comparison, impact graphs, and legal research workflows.
      10
      6,898 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables Korean legal document processing, case analysis, and consultation using MCP, with OCR parsing, fact extraction, claim identification, subsumption grid, legal API verification, and document drafting.
      24
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables natural language interaction with the Korean Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) through 37 MCP tools that search, compare, analyze, and verify legal texts, official guidelines, and consulting cases from authoritative sources.
      37
      30 npm
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to query a structured Vietnamese legal knowledge graph, retrieving articles, definitions, outlines, and document lists with original-text citations and effective status via MCP tools.
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct function: ontology graph query, statistics, precedent relations, precedent semantic search, statute derivation from precedent, statute-to-precedent lookup, and direct statute search. Descriptions clearly differentiate them and recommend specific workflows, avoiding ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the 'lawink_' prefix and generally follow an 'entity_operation' pattern (e.g., 'ontology_graph', 'precedent_semantic_search'). 'statute_by_precedent' deviates by using a preposition, and 'statute_precedents' uses a different construction, but the overall naming is clear and mostly consistent.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 7 tools, the server covers ontology exploration, precedent searching, and statute analysis without being overwhelming or sparse. Each tool has a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped for the legal research domain.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers key legal research workflows: finding precedents from facts, deriving statutes from precedents, exploring ontology relations, and tracing statute citations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., direct precedent detail retrieval), but the ontology graph tool may fill that. Overall, the surface is fairly complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues