# nu:legal Deutsches Recht (remote · recht.nulegal.eu)

German federal and Land statutes plus court decisions for agents. Keyless, read-only, CC BY 4.0.

- Trust score: 72/100 (medium)
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-09-27

## Components

- remote · `recht.nulegal.eu`: 72/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/eu-nulegal-recht/v1-mcp.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/eu-nulegal-recht/v1-mcp)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `1.0.1`

## Trust breakdown

How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-09-27.

- **Endpoint Security**: 80/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one.
  - HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path.
  - The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 61/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).
  - Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 3420 tokens (~380/item across 9 items; 9 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 13/100
  - Stability observed for 4 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
- **Tool Coverage**: 88/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 64% of tool parameters carry a description.
- **Tool Safety**: 100/100
  - No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.
  - We read all 9 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.
  - An AI judge read all 10 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### How do I install the nu:legal Deutsches Recht MCP server?

nu:legal Deutsches Recht is a hosted endpoint at https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http eu-nulegal-recht 'https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp'
```

### Cursor

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "eu-nulegal-recht": {
      "url": "https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### VS Code

```json
{
  "servers": {
    "eu-nulegal-recht": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.eu-nulegal-recht]
url = "https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "eu-nulegal-recht": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add eu-nulegal-recht --url 'https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp' --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  eu-nulegal-recht:
    url: "https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp"
```

### Netclaw

```json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "eu-nulegal-recht": {
      "Transport": "http",
      "Url": "https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Vellum

```bash
assistant mcp add eu-nulegal-recht -t streamable-http -u 'https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp'
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "eu-nulegal-recht": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-09-27 (score 72, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-25 (score 71, +1)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-09-24 (score 70, +1)

- [security] Tool “getNorm” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads
- [security] Tool “listCasePassages” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads
- [security] Tool “listCitingDecisions” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads
- [security] Tool “resolveIdentifiers” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads
- [security] Tool “search” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads
- [functional regression] Schema quality: 301 → 380
- [functional improvement] Stability: unverified → 0.03
- [functional improvement] MCP protocol: fail → pass
- [functional] MCP protocol version: 2025-06-18 → 2025-11-25
- [functional] Server version: 1.0.0 → 1.0.1
- [cosmetic] “listCasePassages” added an optional parameter “around”
- [cosmetic] “listCitingDecisions” added an optional parameter “sort”
- [cosmetic] Tool “getChanges” changed its title: Recently changed provisions → Recent changes
- [cosmetic] Tool “getCoverage” changed its title: What the corpus holds, and what it does not → Corpus coverage
- [cosmetic] Tool “getNorm” changed its title: Statute text, as Markdown → Get statute text
- [cosmetic] Tool “listCasePassages” changed its title: A decision as numbered passages → List case passages
- [cosmetic] Tool “listCitedAuthorities” changed its title: What a decision cites → List cited authorities
- [cosmetic] Tool “listCitingDecisions” changed its title: Decisions citing a provision or a decision → List citing decisions
- [cosmetic] Tool “listNormVersions” changed its title: Observed versions of a provision → List statute versions
- [cosmetic] Tool “resolveIdentifiers” changed its title: Resolve German legal citations → Resolve legal citations
- [cosmetic] Tool “search” changed its title: Search statutes and case law → Search German law

### 2026-09-23 (score 69)

First indexed and scored.

## MCP tools (9)

### `resolveIdentifiers` (~778 tokens)

Resolve legal citations

Ground a batch of German legal citations against the corpus. Call this BEFORE stating any citation you did not read here.

Takes the citation in the form you already hold it — including the court name, the dispositive word and the date a model normally writes around a docket. KEEP THEM IN: the court and the date are used to disambiguate. An Aktenzeichen is unique per court, not nationwide, and 21,021 dockets in this corpus are held by more than one decision, so 'OLG Bamberg, 4 U 120/24' resolves to Bamberg's decision where the bare '4 U 120/24' is ambiguous or lands on another court's. Where the string has to be rewritten to be read, the rewrite is reported back under `normalised_from` / `normalised_to`, never silently, and `disambiguated_by` says when it was YOUR court or date that picked the decision out. Where the court you named writes a suffix your citation dropped ('4 U 120/24 e'), the answer carries `docket_completed` with the full Aktenzeichen — cite that one.

Accepted kinds: norm citations ('§ 823 Abs. 1 BGB', '§§ 305-310 BGB', 'Art. 83 DSGVO'), Aktenzeichen ('2 C 9.22', '8 AZR 26/18'), ECLI ('ECLI:DE:BGH:2019:180619UVIIIZR247.18.0') and Fundstellen ('BVerfGE 65, 1'). Full prose citations work: 'BVerwG, Urteil vom 24.10.2023 - 2 C 9.22'.

It never returns a near match. A miss comes back as `not_in_corpus` (we hold nothing and know of nothing), `attested` / `known_missing` (the decision provably EXISTS — decisions we do hold cite it by Aktenzeichen, and they are listed as the evidence — but we do not have its text), `ambiguous` (with candidates) or `unparseable`. `attested` is not a failure: you may state that the decision exists, cite it, and say the text was not available to you. What you must not do is treat it as `not_in_corpus`.

A resolved norm carries `fundstelle`: the gazette citation of the authentic text, which is the citation a court accepts. Our own URL is a reading copy, and for Land law the gazette citation is the only source reference there…

Input parameters:

- `citations` (array, required): The citations, verbatim as you hold them.
- `include` (array): Opt-in extra payload. 'text' returns a norm's FULL text instead of the 300-character stub — the stub is the same 300 characters whichever Absatz you cited, so never verify a quotation against it. 'le…

### `search` (~397 tokens)

Search German law

One query over BOTH corpora: federal and Land statutes (lexical, with concept pinning) and court decisions (semantic — natural-language questions work well here and are the better shape for case law).

Search both unless you have a reason not to. A term of art often does not appear in the statute that governs it: 'Verzugspauschale' matches no provision (§ 288 BGB says 'Pauschale in Höhe von 40 Euro') while 184 decisions use the word. scope='norms' alone will read as 'nothing here' in exactly those cases.

CROSS-LAND COMPARISON: a single query returns the parallel provisions of the Bund and of every covered Land side by side, each row jurisdiction-labelled, plus a `by_jurisdiction` roll-up. Ask 'Videoüberwachung öffentlich zugänglicher Räume' and you get BDSG § 4 next to the Land data-protection and police provisions. Full text is held for Bayern, Brandenburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Sachsen.

Decision hits come back already anchored at the best-matching Randnummer (…#rd_51), so you can quote a paragraph rather than a document, AND carry `doknr` — the key `listCasePassages`, `listCitedAuthorities` and `listCitingDecisions` take, so you can go straight from a search hit to that decision's passages or its authorities without resolving anything first. Query in German; write raw umlauts, they are handled.

Input parameters:

- `include_repealed` (boolean): Include repealed (aufgehobene) provisions. Off by default; turn it on when researching an older state of the law.
- `limit` (integer)
- `q` (string, required): German query. Keywords, a citation, or a full question.
- `scope` (string): 'all' (default) searches both. Narrow only when you know which corpus answers.

### `getNorm` (~548 tokens)

Get statute text

The text of one provision, by default as clean Markdown — about a tenth the size of the reader page for the same provision, with no navigation, no scripts and no boilerplate.

\`law` is the abbreviation as a citation writes it ('BGB', 'DSGVO', 'BDSG 2018', 'RVG'); `ref` is the bare number, with any letter suffix and no § or Art. ('622', '823', '3a', '83'). Aliases resolve, and CASE IS READ: 'LwG' is the federal Landwirtschaftsgesetz while 'LWG' is a Land statute (Bayern's Landeswahlgesetz, NRW's Landeswassergesetz), so write the abbreviation the way your citation writes it. A spelling that matches no law exactly still resolves case-insensitively, and a miss lists the other laws the abbreviation names under `other_laws`, each with a `law_key` you can call again with.

POINT IN TIME: `as_of=YYYY-MM-DD` returns the version stored for that date. Read `version_coverage` on every answer — the version archive begins 2019-06-10, and a date before that answers `outside_coverage` with the law's amendment register attached. That is a limit of our archive and says nothing about whether the provision existed.

Every answer carries `first_observed`, `valid_to`, `date_precision` and `amendment_note`. `first_observed` is the day we first saw the text, NOT the legal Inkrafttreten — do not compute a deadline from it without reading `date_precision` (day / week / launch; 'launch' means the date is a floor).

TRUST: `fundstelle` is the gazette citation of the authentic text — the citation a court accepts. `authoritative_source` names what our copy is (a consolidated, non-official reading version) and where the binding text lives. Quote the provision from `markdown`; the reader page at `url` carries per-Absatz anchors (#abs-N) if you want to deep-link a single Absatz.

Input parameters:

- `as_of` (string): Return the version stored for this date.
- `format` (string): 'markdown' (default, compact, quotable) or 'json' for the structured payload.
- `law` (string, required): Law abbreviation, or a `law_key` (`slug` in search results) when an abbreviation is ambiguous.
- `ref` (string, required): Provision number without § or Art. A sub-unit ('Abs. 1', 'lit. f') is dropped: the whole provision is returned.

### `listNormVersions` (~196 tokens)

List statute versions

Every stored version of one provision, newest first, so you can find out which dates `getNorm(as_of=…)` can actually answer before you ask.

Each entry carries `first_observed` (the day the text was first seen here — NOT the Inkrafttreten), `valid_to`, `date_precision` and the law-level `amendment_note`. `at_archive_floor: true` marks the version that was current when mirroring began: its date is a floor, not an amendment, and earlier amendments exist that are named in the law's Änderungsverlauf (linked as `amendment_history_url`) but whose text is not held.

There is no diff tool: fetch two versions with `getNorm(as_of=…)` and diff them yourself — a diff we computed would hide which side of it came from a floor date.

Input parameters:

- `law` (string, required)
- `ref` (string, required)

### `listCitingDecisions` (~464 tokens)

List citing decisions

Incoming citation edges. Give EITHER `law` + `ref` (which decisions apply this statute provision) OR `case` (which decisions cite this decision) — exactly one of the two.

Results are ranked by citation weight, then court tier, then recency. Read the ranking honestly: for a provision with many EU decisions the first ten can be almost all CJEU, and the German courts appear only further down. If `total` exceeds what you read, page on with `offset` (`pagination.next_offset`) before concluding anything about national case law.

NEWEST FIRST: pass `sort: "recent"` when the question is about current case law ('fünf aktuelle Entscheidungen zu …'). Paging works the same way. This ordering is bounded — for a handful of procedural giants (§ 154 VwGO, § 708 ZPO) it cannot be computed inside the query budget, and then the answer comes back in WEIGHT order and says so in `sort_applied` and `sort_note`. Check `sort_applied` before you describe a list as the most recent decisions.

For a decision, each citer carries `citing_rn`: the Randnummer of the CITING decision's own text that holds the citation, as that court numbered it, and the URL is anchored to it.

COVERAGE: the graph is built over federal case law. A Land provision can answer `total: 0` because it is not indexed, not because no court has cited it — `coverage.complete_for_this_norm` tells you which, and for a Land provision you should fall back to `search` on the provision's wording.

Input parameters:

- `case` (string): A juris doknr, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it.
- `law` (string)
- `limit` (integer)
- `offset` (integer): Rows to skip, for reading past the first page.
- `ref` (string)
- `sort` (string): 'weight' (default) is citation weight, then court tier, then recency. 'recent' is newest decision first; where it cannot be computed the answer falls back to 'weight' and says so in `sort_applied`.

### `listCitedAuthorities` (~163 tokens)

List cited authorities

Outgoing citation edges of one decision: the statute provisions it cites (with how often it cites each — that is the Normenkette, weighted) and the decisions it relies on.

\`treatment` is null on every edge and stays null. Classifying an edge as gefolgt / abgegrenzt / aufgegeben is unbuilt work, and a wrong 'aufgegeben' in a brief is worse than no label at all. Read the citing passage yourself with `listCasePassages`.

A decision we can prove exists but do not hold answers `known_missing`, with the decisions that attest it — not a 404.

Input parameters:

- `case` (string, required): A juris doknr, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it.

### `listCasePassages` (~417 tokens)

List case passages

The full text of one decision, split into its paragraphs, each with a permalink you can cite.

\`rn` is the Randnummer the COURT printed, read out of the decision's own markup. It is never inferred from position: where a document prints no numbers, `rn` is null and stays null. `anchor_basis` is derived per decision — only 'native_numbering' means our anchor and the printed number provably coincide, so pin-cite a Randnummer only when you see that value.

\`amtliche_seite` is null everywhere: our texts carry no page breaks, so a BVerfGE-style page pin cannot be produced honestly.

SIZE. Long decisions run to several hundred paragraphs, so the default page is 30. Three ways to move: `offset` pages, `limit` widens (max 400 — enough for a whole decision when you really want it), and `around` jumps. `pagination` appears whenever there is more than the page you were handed.

\`around: 51` returns a window of `limit` passages CENTRED on Randnummer 51 — the right call when `listCitingDecisions` gave you a `citing_rn`, when a search hit came back anchored at …#rd_51, or when you want the passage around a pin cite and not the whole judgment. It takes the number the court printed, not a position, and a decision that prints no such number answers `not_in_corpus` rather than silently handing you a different passage. `around` and `offset` address the same list two different ways; give one.

Input parameters:

- `around` (integer|string): A Randnummer as the court printed it. Returns a window of `limit` passages centred on it. Not combinable with `offset`.
- `case` (string, required): A juris doknr, an ECLI, or this site's decision URL as `search` returns it.
- `limit` (integer)
- `offset` (integer)

### `getChanges` (~122 tokens)

Recent changes

Which provisions got a new text recently, newest first — the freshness feed, as JSON. Poll it with `since` set to the newest `observed` you have already processed.

\`observed` is the day the new text was FIRST SEEN here, which is not necessarily the day it came into force. Say so if you report a date. The window is the last 120 days; the law's own Änderungsverlauf goes further back.

Input parameters:

- `limit` (integer)
- `since` (string): Only changes observed on or after this date.

### `getCoverage` (~124 tokens)

Corpus coverage

Corpus scope with its holes stated. Call this once when your answer depends on whether an absence is real.

Returns totals (laws, provisions, versions, decisions, courts, citation edges), the per-source windows, the count of Aktenzeichen we can prove exist and do not hold, and `limits`: the version-archive floor, the federal scope of the citation graph, what a version date actually means, and why source windows differ.

Use it to tell `outside_coverage` from `not_in_corpus`. They are different answers and this API never collapses them.

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/eu-nulegal-recht/v1-mcp#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-09-27: 72
- 2026-09-26: 71
- 2026-09-25: 71
- 2026-09-24: 70
- 2026-09-23: 69

## Common questions

### What is the nu:legal Deutsches Recht MCP server?

nu:legal Deutsches Recht is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as eu.nulegal/recht. German federal and Land statutes plus court decisions for agents. Keyless, read-only, CC BY 4.0. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp).

### Is the nu:legal Deutsches Recht MCP server safe to use?

nu:legal Deutsches Recht scores 72 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.

### What tools does the nu:legal Deutsches Recht MCP server expose?

nu:legal Deutsches Recht exposes 9 tools: resolveIdentifiers, search, getNorm, listNormVersions, listCitingDecisions, and 4 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 3,209 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

### Does the nu:legal Deutsches Recht MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to nu:legal Deutsches Recht without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

### Is the nu:legal Deutsches Recht MCP server still maintained?

nu:legal Deutsches Recht is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 27 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://recht.nulegal.eu/v1/mcp
- Website: https://recht.nulegal.eu/developers
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/eu-nulegal-recht/v1-mcp.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/eu-nulegal-recht/v1-mcp.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/eu-nulegal-recht/v1-mcp