io.arxo/de-bgb · v0.1.9 · productivity
BGB (Germany) is healthy: it completed an MCP handshake in 1700 ms and exposes 20 tools.
German Civil Code (BGB) as executable rules: periods, deadlines and more, answered with grounds
Endpoint: https://mcp.arxo.io/mcp/de-bgb (streamable-http)
Repository · Website · JSON · Add to my inventory
| Users (last 30 days) | 0 |
| Handshake | Healthy |
| Auth needed | None |
| Tool count | 20 |
| Latency | 1700 ms |
| Last checked (UTC) | 2026-10-15T14:30:18.022Z |
| Checked (UTC) | Status | Latency | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-15T14:30:18.022Z | Healthy | 1700 |
law_search | A semantic SEARCH over formalised law: a question or a notion in your own words → candidates with addresses — predicates with signatures, rules, article fragments. This is the layer of DISCOVERY, not of the answer: the result says WHAT to ask next (law_ask by signature, law_rules, law_sources) and e |
law_passport | Passport of an exact release: purpose, interface, boundaries, checks and performance. The reports section holds the history of measurements, failures included. Entries are paged by JSON Pointer; next continues the answer. |
law_answer_capabilities | A machine-readable matrix of the Lens producers that are actually installed, of replay/projection checks, profiles, limits and the contract tests that confirm them. declared_only means a schema with no executable witness. |
law_capture_answer | Run a registered producer and obtain producerControl/0.2 for a later verifiable preparation of a Lens. The producer is chosen only from the shipped registry. |
law_prepare_answer | At the explicit request of the user, repeat between 1 and 12 earlier law_ask or law_process_run calls (the course of a case, DECISION-0160), compare their replayControl strictly, and prepare a non-public frozen document for 24 hours. The client never supplies the machine answer: the server obtains i |
law_publish_answer | Publish a prepared document. Repeating it with the same preparationId idempotently returns the same URL and the same separate revocation secret. |
law_revoke_answer | Revoke a published document using its separate secret. The public id alone grants no control; revocation closes the HTML page, the API and the download. |
law_packages | The catalogue of formalised law: instruments, predicates with signatures, the boundaries of coverage. This is where the NAMES of predicates come from — they must never be guessed. But do NOT start from the catalogue when looking for the right instrument: the overview is large, and the title of an in |
law_ask | Put a question to formalised law. When the answer is "not established" it carries whyNot — the engine's why_not report §185: the candidate rules and the state of every conjunct (satisfied / not satisfied / undetermined); the missing facts are visible there and need not be guessed. BEFORE THE FIRST c |
law_screen | Build a necessary condition — a superset — for the preliminary selection of rows from an external source (DECISION-0120). This is NOT a legal answer and NOT SQL: the result is a typed tree and a manifest of the extensions up to TRUE. Every row that passes must then be computed in full by the engine, |
law_rules | The rules of formalised law put into words: exactly how a predicate is derived (premises, source articles). Call this BEFORE supplying facts to law_ask — the rules say which facts are needed instead of leaving them to be guessed. For large instruments package=… returns a table of contents; the full |
law_explain | Unfold the proof of a law_ask answer into a chain "rule ← premises → conclusion". The compact input: question (the original law_ask arguments, truth/collect), resultHash and codeHash from the provenance of the answer. The server repeats the computation and compares the hashes; if anything changed it |
law_case_ask | Die Operation ask §168.4 (DECISION-0165, DECISION-0399): eine registrierte Sache eines Fallpakets über ihren verankerten Abhängigkeiten ausführen und das kanonische Auswertungsdokument mit Beweis und Manifest zurückgeben. Die Frage ist JSON nach query.schema.json (query), eine evaluate-Zeichenkette |
law_sources | Sources: by default short excerpts (view=summary), 5 texts per page, with the address of the full text in fragments[].full. Either package or fragment is required (a StableId from law_search/law_rules). view=full returns exact parts of the text: textRange sets a range of Unicode characters, fragment |
law_argue | How robust a conclusion is: the map of the dispute under the argumentation profile §274 (DECISION-0039). The answer falls into four classes: SKEPTICALLY_ACCEPTED — the conclusion is invulnerable (it survives in the grounded extension); CREDULOUSLY_ACCEPTED — merely defensible (there is a position fo |
law_process | Which stages the procedure established by an instrument consists of, and whether it carries a structural defect (O-5, DECISION-0052). The stages, the transitions and the condition of every transition are reconstructed from the formalisation rather than retold: what leads from where to where, and und |
law_process_run | How a particular case will run, step by step (O-5, DECISION-0052): a log of {date, attempt?, facts?} is executed frame by frame, and the law of each frame is the law of ITS date. The answer says: which stages have been entered; which attempted transition produced NO legal effect (§164 — "the act was |
law_editions | The axis of editions (O-2): what changed in an instrument between two dates of the law — the state of the editions, the dating of the norms and the semantic diff §215 between the D1 projections. The verdict NOT_DATED means "there was nothing to date it by", not "nothing changed". The outcome of a pa |
law_query | Eine deterministische LawQL-Abfrage über das CLIR einer Formalisierung: eine Frage an das Modell des Aktes selbst, nicht an einen Fall. Relationen: nodes(id,kind,package,package_name,path), edges(from,to,role), anchors(node,anchor,act,locator,path), labels(node,lang,text,status), fields(node,field,v |
law_report | A REPORT of a divergence between the formalisation and the source: the answer contradicts the pinned text, a norm of the source is not expressed by a rule, a §218 label diverges from the text, an address cannot be found. A report is a hypothesis for triage by a formaliser: it does NOT change the law |