entscheidsuche.ch スイスの法的決定検索 API にアクセスするための MCP サーバー。
このサーバーは、モデル・コンテキスト・プロトコル（MCP）を通じてスイスの裁判所の判決への標準化されたアクセスを提供します。これにより、クロードのような法学修士（LLM）は、entscheidsuche.chデータベースから法文書を検索、取得、分析することができます。
Related MCP server: Legal Court MCP Server
リソース: スイスの裁判所の判決を検索可能なリソースとしてアクセスする
ツール: 裁判所の判決を検索、文書を取得、州別に裁判所を一覧表示
プロンプト: 一般的な法的調査タスクのテンプレート
# Clone the repository
git clone [repository-url]
cd entscheidsuche-mcp-server
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the server
npm run buildClaude for Desktopの設定を開く
claude_desktop_config.jsonに以下を追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"entscheidsuche": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/entscheidsuche-mcp-server/build/index.js"]
}
}
}デスクトップ版のClaudeを再起動
法律関連の調査に関する質問を始めましょう。
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node /path/to/entscheidsuche-mcp-server/build/index.jsentscheidsuche://scrapers - 利用可能なすべてのスクレーパー/コレクションを一覧表示します
entscheidsuche://scraper/{scraperId} - 特定のスクレーパーの詳細を取得します
entscheidsuche://document/{documentId} - 特定のドキュメントのメタデータにアクセスします
search-decisions - Elasticsearch クエリ構文を使用して裁判所の判決を検索する
get-document-content - 特定のドキュメントの内容を取得する
list-courts - 州別に利用可能な裁判所を一覧表示
get-document-urls - ドキュメントの PDF および HTML バージョンの直接 URL を取得します
search-legal-precedents - 特定の法律トピックに関する関連する判例を検索します
compare-jurisdictions - 異なる州間で特定の法的問題に関する判決を比較する
court-decisions - 特定の裁判所の最近の判決を取得する
Can you find Swiss court decisions about copyright infringement in Zurich from the last 5 years?How do different Swiss cantons approach the legal issue of tenant rights in rental disputes?Can you retrieve and analyze the decision with ID "ZH_VG-VB.2021.00042"?MCP TypeScript SDKを使用して構築
entscheidsuche.ch サーバーに優しいレート制限を尊重します
適切な認証とエラー処理を行います
検索結果を主要なメタデータ（裁判所、日付、事件番号）でフォーマットします
貢献を歓迎します！お気軽にプルリクエストを送信してください。
このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています。
APIを提供してくださったentscheidsuche.ch
優れたSDKを提供してくれたModel Context Protocolチーム
このドキュメントでは、Claude を通じて Entscheidsuche MCP サーバーを使用してスイスの法的判決を調査する方法の例を示します。
Find Swiss court decisions about intellectual property rights in the technology sector from the last 5 years.What are some important court decisions from the canton of Zurich (ZH) related to landlord-tenant disputes?Can you find Swiss Federal Supreme Court cases discussing the concept of "good faith" (Treu und Glauben) in contract law?Can you retrieve and analyze the Swiss court decision with ID "CH_BGer-4A_283_2021"?I'd like to access the original court decision for case number "ZH_OG-LB190025". Can you provide the PDF and HTML links?How do the cantons of Geneva (GE), Vaud (VD), and Zurich (ZH) differ in their approach to divorce settlements? Please search for relevant cases and compare.Has there been an evolution in how Swiss courts have interpreted data protection rights over the last decade? Search for relevant cases and analyze the trend.I'm researching a case where an employee was terminated while on medical leave. Can you find Swiss court decisions that established precedent for similar situations?Find the most significant Swiss court decisions related to pharmaceutical patent disputes and analyze how they've shaped the legal landscape in this area.Using the compare-jurisdictions prompt, please analyze how different Swiss cantons approach the legal issue of "non-compete clauses" in employment contracts.Using the search-legal-precedents prompt, find relevant Swiss legal precedents about "algorithmic decision making" and data protection, focusing on federal court decisions.Using the court-decisions prompt, retrieve recent decisions from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht) within the last 2 years related to cryptocurrency regulation.Retrieve the full content of a specific legal document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Document format to retrieve | json |
| signature | Yes | Document signature (e.g., CH_BGer_005_5F-23-2025_2025-07-01) | |
| spider | No | Court/spider name (e.g., CH_BGer). If not provided, will be extracted from signature |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a simple fetch versus a complex operation. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid document signature, how the retrieved content is structured, error handling, or operational constraints. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between signature and spider parameters, provide examples of valid signatures, or clarify the format parameter's implications.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('full content of a specific legal document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_case_law' or 'list_courts' - it doesn't explain that this retrieves a single document by signature rather than searching or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'search_case_law', or any context about what constitutes a 'specific legal document' that can be retrieved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about available courts and their document counts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the information is returned in. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' includes (e.g., court names, IDs, document counts), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a tool that returns data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about available courts and their document counts', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_case_law', which might also involve court information but with different functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_case_law'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for Swiss court decisions using Entscheidsuche database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Starting position for pagination | |
| query | Yes | Search query for legal cases | |
| size | No | Number of results to return (max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., result format, metadata). This is inadequate for a search tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'query' for search terms and 'from/size' for pagination. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a legal context, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('Swiss court decisions') with the specific database ('Entscheidsuche'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'list_courts', which might also retrieve legal information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention scenarios for searching case law compared to getting specific documents or listing courts, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0get_documentlist_courtssearch_case_lawEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_document retrieves specific document content, list_courts provides metadata about courts, and search_case_law performs searches across the database. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_document, list_courts, search_case_law) with clear, descriptive verbs. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the server feels somewhat thin for a legal document search domain. While the tools cover core operations (retrieve, list, search), more comprehensive coverage might include tools for filtering, advanced search, or document metadata management, suggesting a borderline appropriateness.
The tools provide basic CRUD-like operations (get, list, search) for legal documents and courts, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for updating or deleting documents, managing user queries, or handling advanced search parameters, which could limit agent effectiveness in complex workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
Slovak court decisions as MCP tools. 12,000+ decisions, GDPR-compliant, pseudonymized, SLA-backed.
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/self-tech-labs/entscheidsuche-MCP-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
