Antevo Trademark

Which classes to file in

suggest_classes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which Nice classes a business like this files in. Free, no account, no database.

The question people cannot answer for themselves: not "is my name taken" but
"taken in WHAT". Nice has 45 classes and the numbering is opaque — software you
download is class 9, software you log into is class 42, and selling other people's
goods is class 35 whatever the goods are. Filing in one and not the other is the
most expensive routine mistake in the process.

Run this BEFORE screen_mark when someone describes a business rather than naming a
class: the classes it returns are what makes a screen mean anything. Relay the
reasoning, not just the numbers, and keep the closing caveat — this reports how
similar businesses file, and their counsel decides what they actually file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`description`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds extra behavioral context: 'Free, no account, no database' and that the tool reports how similar businesses file with a closing caveat. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't enumerate all output details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is efficiently written, with each sentence adding value: purpose, problem context, usage guidance, output behavior, and a caveat. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns (classes and reasoning), when to use it, why it matters, and includes the caveat about legal counsel. No critical information is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'a business like this' and 'when someone describes a business' imply the single 'description' parameter is a business description. The meaning is clear, though not formally structured or exemplified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it returns the Nice classes a business files in. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'is my name taken' and naming screen_mark as a related but different tool. The verb is implied but the resource is specific.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Run this BEFORE screen_mark when someone describes a business rather than naming a class'. It also explains why, noting the classes are what make a screen meaningful. This clearly indicates when to use this tool over alternatives.

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

All Antevo Trademark tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct trademark research question: market activity, entity analysis, opposition deadlines, mark screening, and class suggestion. No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix patterns: verb_noun (screen_mark, suggest_classes), noun_verb (holder_read), noun_noun (opposition_window), and gerund_noun (filing_landscape). While readable, the inconsistent structure makes the set feel less predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a trademark research domain. Each tool covers a major workflow step without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the core trademark research lifecycle: class suggestion, mark screening, opposition deadlines, holder analysis, and filing landscape. No obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?