OpenCaseLaw — Swiss Caselaw, Statutes & Doctrine

{
  "id": "aix_b1c1a0d4a4",
  "name": "OpenCaseLaw — Swiss Caselaw, Statutes & Doctrine",
  "operator": "(unclaimed - source: registry-official · publisher: ch.opencaselaw)",
  "description": "1M+ Swiss court decisions, statutes & doctrine with citation graph (DE/FR/IT). CC0, free, 42 tools.",
  "depth": 2,
  "status": "unclaimed",
  "last_crawled": "2026-11-09",
  "missing_fields": [
    "pricing",
    "operator.identity"
  ],
  "skills": [
    "citation-check",
    "data-enrichment",
    "media-catalog",
    "pdf-to-json",
    "sql-database"
  ],
  "protocols": {
    "mcp": "https://mcp.opencaselaw.ch/mcp",
    "a2a": null
  },
  "pricing": null,
  "regions": [
    "global"
  ],
  "languages": [
    "en"
  ],
  "reputation": {
    "tasks_completed": null,
    "dispute_rate": null,
    "p95_latency_ms": 712,
    "uptime_30d": 0.997134670487106,
    "onchain_volume_30d_usd": null
  },
  "aix_score": 61,
  "verification": {
    "identity": "none",
    "health": "probe/24h",
    "pricing": "unknown",
    "last_check": "2026-11-09T10:00:51.276Z"
  },
  "pricing_model": "unknown",
  "links": [
    {
      "label": "homepage",
      "url": "https://opencaselaw.ch/"
    },
    {
      "label": "repository",
      "url": "https://github.com/jonashertner/caselaw-repo-1"
    }
  ],
  "avatar": "https://github.com/jonashertner.png?size=160",
  "socials": [
    {
      "label": "github",
      "url": "https://github.com/jonashertner"
    }
  ],
  "profile": {
    "mcp_server": "swiss-caselaw",
    "mcp_version": "29b0cc81",
    "tool_count": 42,
    "tools": [
      {
        "name": "search",
        "description": "Minimal search tool following the deep-research search/fetch convention. Returns a ranked list of Swiss court decisions matching a query, each as {id, title, url, snippet}. Pair with `fetch` to retrieve a decision's full text by id. General (non-deep-research) clients should prefer `search_decisions`, which exposes filters (court, canton, date, language) and richer metadata. Relevance-ranked, so not the way to the newest rulings: use search_decisions with sort='date_desc' or published_from, and expect the newest decision dates to trail today, since courts publish weeks to months after deciding"
      },
      {
        "name": "fetch",
        "description": "Minimal fetch tool following the deep-research search/fetch convention. Fetches one Swiss decision's full text by id, returning {id, title, text, url, metadata}. The id comes from a `search` result (a decision_id like bger_6B_1234_2025; a docket number or BGE reference also resolves). General clients should prefer `get_decision`."
      },
      {
        "name": "search_decisions",
        "description": "Use this tool to find COURT DECISIONS (Rechtsprechung): 1,040,000+ Swiss federal and cantonal decisions plus ~2,800 ECtHR decisions concerning Switzerland. Full-text search with keywords, phrases (in quotes), Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), prefix matching (word*), docket lookup (6B_1234/2025) and column-scoped search (regeste:keyword). Filter by court, canton, language, date range, chamber. Results are relevance-ranked and enriched with citation counts, statute references and is_leading_case. Use offset to page. Newest decision dates: empty query + sort='date_desc' + court filter; they trai"
      },
      {
        "name": "get_decision",
        "description": "Fetch a single court decision with full text. Look up by decision_id (e.g., bger_6B_1234_2025), docket number (e.g., 6B_1234/2025), or partial match. Full text is truncated at 200,000 characters for very long decisions. Set full_text=false to get only metadata and regeste."
      },
      {
        "name": "get_decisions",
        "description": "Use this tool to fetch SEVERAL decisions at once (1-10 ids) instead of calling get_decision repeatedly. Same data per decision — canonical citation strings, Markdown link, Regeste, metadata — in ONE call. Prefer this whenever you are about to read more than one decision from a search result: it is the difference between one tool call and ten, which matters because clients cap tool calls per turn. full_text defaults to FALSE here (unlike get_decision) because ten full judgments exceed connector response limits; set it true only for a short id list, and each text is excerpted with the cut disclo"
      },
      {
        "name": "list_courts",
        "description": "List all available courts with decision counts, decision-date ranges, and language coverage. Use this to discover what data is available. A court's latest decision date is not its last update: courts publish weeks to months after deciding, and this corpus is updated daily."
      },
      {
        "name": "get_statistics",
        "description": "Get aggregate statistics about the dataset. Optionally filter by court, canton, or year. by_year counts decision years: the latest years keep rising for months as courts publish, so their lower counts are publication lag, not missing data."
      },
      {
        "name": "find_citations",
        "description": "Given a decision_id, show what it cites and what cites it. Uses the reference graph database with 9.65M citation edges. Returns resolved citations with confidence scores and unresolved references."
      },
      {
        "name": "find_appeal_chain",
        "description": "Trace the appeal chain (Instanzenzug) for a decision. Shows prior instances (lower courts) and subsequent instances (appeals to higher courts). Reconstructs the full procedural path, e.g. Bezirksgericht → Obergericht → Bundesgericht. Uses the is_prior_instance flag from decision headers."
      },
      {
        "name": "find_leading_cases",
        "description": "Find the most-cited decisions for a topic or statute. Authority ranking based on citation graph, so recent decisions rank low (not yet cited); for the newest use search_decisions(sort='date_desc'). A free-text topic ranks decisions whose regeste carries the query terms first (`regeste_match`: share of terms found, null without a regeste). Filter by statute (law_code + article), topic query, court, and date range. Top-3 results auto-attach a `pinpoint` field {e_number, matched_sentence, confidence, url, score, source} anchoring the most-relevant Erwägung (surface it as 'E. <e_number>' when conf"
      },
      {
        "name": "analyze_legal_trend",
        "description": "Year-by-year decision counts showing jurisprudence evolution. Use with a statute reference (law_code + article), a text query, or both. Returns yearly counts with visual bar chart. Years are decision years: the latest one or two keep rising as courts publish weeks to months after deciding, so a dip at the end is publication lag, not a trend or a gap."
      },
      {
        "name": "draft_mock_decision",
        "description": "Build a research-only mock decision outline from user facts. Combines relevant Swiss case law retrieval with statute references. If possible, enriches statutes with Fedlex text excerpts. IMPORTANT: The tool may return clarification questions (high/medium priority). High-priority clarifications must be answered (via the clarifications parameter) before the tool will provide a conclusion. Call again with clarifications to get the full analysis."
      },
      {
        "name": "get_case_brief",
        "description": "Structured case brief: regeste, Sachverhalt, key Erwägungen (first 12 only — for orientation, NOT a pinpoint ranking), Dispositiv, statutes, citation authority, related cases. Accepts BGE ref, decision_id, or docket. To pinpoint which Erwägung supports a specific claim, use find_relevant_erwaegung — never guess from key_erwaegungen alone."
      },
      {
        "name": "get_decision_structure",
        "description": "Structured decision fields: Sachverhalt (facts), Erwägungen as numbered paragraphs ('1', '1.1', '2.3'), Dispositiv (ruling), Regeste (BGE only). Federal decisions only; for cantonal use get_decision. Returns excerpts; for verbatim full text of one Erwägung, use get_erwaegung. PINPOINT POLICY: never guess. If user gave an e_number → verify with get_erwaegung. If user gave only a claim → use find_relevant_erwaegung (FTS5+BM25 with confidence labels). If neither is confident, report no_match — do NOT default to E. 3.1."
      },
      {
        "name": "get_erwaegung",
        "description": "Verbatim text of ONE numbered Erwägung — the citable unit in Swiss practice (e.g. 'BGE 136 III 513 E. 2.3'). Use when the user already gave an e_number. If only a claim was given (no e_number): use find_relevant_erwaegung — never guess. Returns text + sibling Erwägung numbers; a parent (E. 2.2) includes its sub-Erwägungen in order, each also under `parts`. e_number: '1', '4.1', '5.2.1', …"
      },
      {
        "name": "find_relevant_erwaegung",
        "description": "Find which Erwägung paragraph(s) match a legal claim. Server-side FTS5+BM25 over per-paragraph text; returns top-k with confidence labels (high/medium/low) and a highlighted_snippet wrapping the matched sentence in <mark>…</mark> (quote it verbatim). When no_match=true or confidence=low, do NOT cite any Erwägung — report no_match. Federal decisions only. Replaces the 'always-E.-3.1' guessing pattern."
      },
      {
        "name": "get_article_purpose",
        "description": "Return verbatim text from the Federal Council Botschaft (or Erläuterungsbericht) explaining the legislative purpose of a specific article. Joins the verbatim Botschaft corpus (post-2003 BBl publications, Akoma Ntoso XML where available, PDF fallback otherwise) with the article-Botschaft link table. Returns one entry per source — original Botschaft + any amendment Botschaften. All paragraphs are verbatim text to quote with `bbl_citation, S. {printed_page}`; printed_page null = cite without a pinpoint. Draft statute text comes apart in `draft_texts` and is not an explanation. USE THIS when the u"
      },
      {
        "name": "search_botschaft",
        "description": "Retrieve and quote the VERBATIM text of federal Materialien: Federal Council Botschaften, Berichte and Stellungnahmen des Bundesrates, parliamentary committee reports, Erlassentwürfe — and the Vernehmlassung documents: Erläuternde Berichte, Vorlagen, Ergebnisberichte, Stellungnahmen (2,500+ procedures from Fedlex). Each hit is tagged `doc_type`; filter with doc_type, default all. Bundesblatt hits come in `results` (bbl_citation, title, publication_date from Fedlex where available — `publication_date_source` says whether it is Fedlex's date or only the BBl year — page, section, article anchor);"
      },
      {
        "name": "get_article_history",
        "description": "Chronological story of a single statute article: current text + every linked Botschaft (enacted + amendments) + leading court interpretations + doctrinal commentary, all ordered by date. Combines statutes.db, materialien.db, reference_graph.db, and ok_commentaries.db into one timeline. USE THIS when the user asks 'how did Art. X evolve' or 'what's the full picture on Art. X' — a single call returns the legislative + judicial + doctrinal arc."
      },
      {
        "name": "get_regeste",
        "description": "Get the official Regeste (head-note) of a Swiss court decision. The Regeste is the court's own formulation of the legal rule established — for BGEs especially, this is the canonical citation target. Often references specific Erwägungen via '(E. 5.2.1)' which can then be retrieved verbatim with get_erwaegung. USE THIS when the user asks 'what does this case stand for' or 'what is the rule from this decision'. Available for ~54% of federal decisions (100% of BGE)."
      },
      {
        "name": "check_claim_support",
        "description": "Verify whether a Swiss court decision actually supports a legal claim. Uses an independent Sonnet judge to compare the claim against verbatim text from the decision (Erwägung if pinpoint given, else Regeste, else first portion of full text). Returns {supports: yes|partial|no|contradicts|unrelated, confidence, supporting_excerpt, qualifying_excerpt, reasoning}. CALL THIS for any claim where citing the wrong authority would mislead the user — especially when paraphrasing a decision or drawing a proposition from a complex Erwägung. If supports=no or contradicts, do NOT use the cited decision for "
      },
      {
        "name": "attest_response",
        "description": "MANDATORY FINAL-STEP AUDIT of your draft answer. Checks five hallucination classes: (1) every case citation (BGE/BGer/BVGer/BStGer/BPatGer/MKGE, FR/IT forms) exists and any pinpoint (E. X.Y) resolves to a real Erwägung; (2) every 'Art. X LAW' statute reference resolves; (3) quoted passages (60-400 chars) near a citation or statute reference are verbatim in that source (DE/FR/IT; audit_quotes, on by default); (4) decision dates adjacent to citations match the stored dates; (5) with audit_grounding=true, an LLM judge checks that each cited source supports the preceding claim (one call, ~3 s). Re"
      },
      {
        "name": "cite",
        "description": "Get the canonical Swiss citation string for a decision reference. CALL THIS BEFORE writing any case citation in your response. Returns ready-to-embed citation_string (DE/FR/IT variants plus a canonical URL) and a verbatim rule_statement. If the reference doesn't exist, returns exists=false plus close_matches for typo-correction — DO NOT guess or construct citations yourself; if you get exists=false, either re-query with a close match or skip the citation entirely. Accepts any Swiss reference form: decision_id (bger_4A_747_2012), BGE reference (BGE 140 III 86), or docket number (4A_747/2012). O"
      },
      {
        "name": "get_doctrine",
        "description": "Get statute text + leading cases + doctrinal timeline + Federal Council Botschaft (legislative intent) + scholarly commentary for a Swiss law article or legal concept. ALWAYS USE THIS for questions about the purpose, intent, or ratio legis of a provision — it returns the Botschaft (Materialien) alongside the case law. Input: statute reference ('Art. 41 OR', 'Art. 8 BV') or legal concept. Returns: current statute text, top 5-8 BGEs ranked by citation authority with the rule each establishes, doctrine evolution timeline, Botschaft reference (legislative intent from the Federal Council's message)"
      },
      {
        "name": "generate_exam_question",
        "description": "Generate a Swiss law exam practice question (Fallbearbeitung) based on a real BGE. Returns a fact pattern (Sachverhalt) from a real court decision and a hidden analysis (applicable statutes, leading case, legal test, correct outcome). Workflow: present the fact_pattern and hint to the student, wait for their analysis, then reveal the analysis field and compare. The student can then call get_case_brief(source_decision_id) to study the full case. Pass exclude_ids from previous calls to avoid repeating the same case."
      }
    ],
    "profiled_at": "2026-11-09T10:00:51.276Z"
  },
  "unreachable": false,
  "payment_method": "open"
}