权利人/品牌的「维权方画像」:聚合其在美国的商标组合 + 是否为 TRO/Schedule A 高频维权方。
用于卖家评估某品牌是否激进维权(批量起诉 Schedule A + 临时禁令 TRO 常冻结账户)、是否应高度规避。
owner: 权利人或品牌名,如 "Nike" 或 "YETI"。
返回: {owner, is_enforcer, enforcement{level,note,src}, total_marks, live_marks,
top_classes[{nice,count}], tro_marks[], sample_marks[], risk_hint}。
is_enforcer=true 表示命中维权种子库,强烈建议规避;结果仅供参考,不构成法律意见。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| country | No | US |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides meaningful context: it explains what is_enforcer=true means (a hit in the enforcement seed library), strongly recommends avoidance, and includes a legal disclaimer. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention auth/rate limits, but for a profile lookup these are largely implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, parameter meaning, return fields, and a disclaimer. The return field listing is necessary because no output schema exists, and the text is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the return fields and explains the owner parameter, but it omits any explanation of the country parameter and its effect on results. This gap leaves the agent without full guidance on how to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required owner parameter with examples ('Nike', 'YETI'), but completely omits the country parameter and its default, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: it aggregates a brand's US trademark portfolio and determines whether it is a high-frequency TRO/Schedule A enforcer. This distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so a 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states the usage context: for sellers to assess whether a brand aggressively enforces and whether to avoid it. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.