normkompass-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_law

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search German federal law and return ranked passages with citation labels, source URLs, and version dates. Use it to find the exact passage before citing.

Instructions

Search the normkompass corpus and return the best matching passages, in the API's order, each with its citation label (for example '§ 14 Abs. 1 UStG'), title, source URL, Stand and text. Use it to find the exact passage before citing. German federal law (UStG, UStDV, AO, BDSG, DDG). Not legal advice. Every result carries the Stand (version date) of the law it comes from.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "search_law"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`question`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`passages`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context on top: results come back 'in the API's order', every hit is labelled with the Stand (version date) of the law, and it carries a 'Not legal advice' caveat — useful behavioral framing a caller could not derive from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the verb and corpus, then return shape, then the usage cue and caveat. Slightly redundant — the Stand point is stated twice ('each with its citation label…Stand' and 'Every result carries the Stand…') — but no sentences are wasted overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Rich annotations and an output schema mean return values need no explanation here, and the corpus scope plus version-date semantics are well covered. The gap is query-side: how to phrase 'question' for a passage-matching search and what limit does are left entirely unstated, which matters for a retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not: 'question' is never explained (natural-language question vs. keyword query vs. citation lookup), and 'limit' is not mentioned at all, including its default of 5 or its effect on ordering/coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the normkompass corpus') plus the scope of the corpus (German federal law: UStG, UStDV, AO, BDSG, DDG) and what is returned (passages with citation label, title, URL, Stand, text). It never names the sibling ask_law or explains how this differs from it, so an agent must infer the split.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use it to find the exact passage before citing' gives a concrete workflow trigger for selecting this tool. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing against ask_law, which is the one obvious alternative an agent would weigh.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools

ask_lawA
search_lawA