Skip to main content
Glama

trademark_lookup_by_serial

按目标国家查询 One1 已覆盖的商标数据,以该国数据库中的商标编号精确查询。

用于已知商标号(如收到侵权通知里的号)时直接查该标。
serial: 目标国库内编号;"78414956" 仅为 US 示例。
返回: {serial, found, result:{mark, legal_status, applicant, risk_level, ...}}。

country: 单个国家/地区代码,不是任意 ISO 代码;去首尾空白并转大写。省略、空串或纯空白默认 US。英国使用 UK,欧盟 EU,马德里国际注册 WO;不接受多国列表。文本本地配置支持:AR, AT, AU, AZ, BR, CA, CL, CN, CZ, DZ, EE, ES, EU, FI, FR, GE, HR, ID, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, KH, KR, LT, MX, NO, NZ, PL, PT, PY, RO, SG, SK, TW, UA, UK, US, VN, WO。实际文本检索合作方路由为 BX/DE/ES/IT/TR;BX 未列入覆盖快照,覆盖未验证。编号/权利人工具仅查本地源,能力与文本检索不同。历史图形接口还接受 USPAT 等设计库代码,返回专利图形候选,不代表商标国家覆盖。图形以 coverage_info 的 graphic_served 和实际后端可用性为准,可能有 ARIPO/OAPI 等地区代码。 先调用 coverage_info(country="") 获取覆盖清单,再以目标代码查询各国覆盖。全表来自静态快照,单国优先后端、失败回落静态;注意 warning、scope 和 clearance_ok(工具输出不含数据截止日字段,需要截止日请让用户查 https://one1.cn/api/coverage?country=XX)。各国数据范围、截止时间和完整性不同,多国支持不等于全球全量覆盖;无命中不等于可注册或不侵权。coverage.clearance_ok=false 时不能给可注册结论;true 也不是法律保证。count 是返回数量(文本近似检索为邻居数量),不是冲突数;结合 has_conflicts、conflict_count 和逐条风险信号判断。visual_similarity 不是侵权概率。TRO/enforcement 是库内信号,需核对来源和时间。USPTO/TSDR 仅适用于美国记录,其他国家核对相应官方来源。US 请求仅为示例。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serialYes
countryNo单个国家/地区代码,不是任意 ISO 代码;去首尾空白并转大写。省略、空串或纯空白默认 US。英国使用 UK,欧盟 EU,马德里国际注册 WO;不接受多国列表。文本本地配置支持:AR, AT, AU, AZ, BR, CA, CL, CN, CZ, DZ, EE, ES, EU, FI, FR, GE, HR, ID, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, KH, KR, LT, MX, NO, NZ, PL, PT, PY, RO, SG, SK, TW, UA, UK, US, VN, WO。实际文本检索合作方路由为 BX/DE/ES/IT/TR;BX 未列入覆盖快照,覆盖未验证。编号/权利人工具仅查本地源,能力与文本检索不同。历史图形接口还接受 USPAT 等设计库代码,返回专利图形候选,不代表商标国家覆盖。图形以 coverage_info 的 graphic_served 和实际后端可用性为准,可能有 ARIPO/OAPI 等地区代码。US

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / country / description
      Added value: +"单个国家/地区代码,不是任意 ISO 代码;去首尾空白并转大写。省略、空串或纯空白默认 US。英国使用 UK,欧盟 EU,马德里国际注册 WO;不接受多国列表。文本本地配置支持:AR, AT, AU, AZ, BR, CA, CN, CZ, DZ, ES, EU, FI, FR, GE, HR, ID, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, KR, MX, NO, NZ, PL, PT, PY, RO, SG, SK, TW, UA, UK, US, VN, WO。实际文本检索合作方路由为 BX/DE/ES/IT/TR;BX 未列入覆盖快照,覆盖未验证。编号/权利人工具仅查本地源,能力与文本检索不同。历史图形接口还接受 USPAT 等设计库代码,返回专利图形候选,不代表商标国家覆盖。图形以 coverage_info 的 graphic_served 和实际后端可用性为准,可能有 ARIPO/OAPI 等地区代码。"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the return shape, single-country-preferred-backend with static-snapshot fallback, the presence of warning/scope/clearance_ok signals, count semantics (return quantity, not conflict count), that visual_similarity is not infringement probability, and data-staleness/coverage limits. These are non-obvious traits an agent must know before trusting output.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, but the body is a long undifferentiated wall of text that duplicates the schema's country description verbatim and imports large amounts of coverage_info-specific detail (routing partners, graphic library codes, coverage_status caveats) that do not help call this tool. Structure is poor relative to size.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the return shape {serial, found, result:{mark, legal_status, applicant, risk_level, ...}} and the caveats needed to interpret it. It is nearly sufficient, though the diffused organization means an agent must sift coverage-related material to find the lookup-relevant parts.

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 coverage is only 50% because serial has no schema description, but the description compensates by defining serial as the number inside the target country's database and giving a concrete example ("78414956" is US-only). Country semantics are restated from the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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+resource: query a covered country's trademark database by exact serial number. It also differentiates capability from sibling tools ("编号/权利人工具仅查本地源,能力与文本检索不同"), though it never names trademark_text_search or the owner tools directly, so the routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ("用于已知商标号(如收到侵权通知里的号)时直接查该标") and an explicit prerequisite workflow ("先调用 coverage_info(country="") 获取覆盖清单"). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when only a name/owner is known.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.