按权利人/申请人(applicant)查其名下的美国商标。
用于做竞品权利人画像、查某公司商标布局、识别高频维权方。
owner: 权利人/公司名,如 "Nike, Inc."。
live_only: 仅 Live,默认 False。limit: 默认 20。
返回: {owner, count, results:[{mark, nice_class, legal_status, risk_level, tro_alert?}]}。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| country | No | US | |
| live_only | No |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses defaults (live_only False, limit 20) and sketches the return shape, but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, or result caps beyond the default limit.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action, then use cases, then parameters, then return shape. Terse and wasted-motion-free, though the use-case line is somewhat prose-heavy relative to parameter detail.
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?
Although no output schema exists, the description summarizes the return object (owner, count, results with mark/class/status/risk/tro_alert), which is the most valuable completeness element. The main gap is the undocumented country parameter.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains owner (with an example), live_only, and limit, but the 'country' parameter (default US) is never mentioned even though its existence is non-obvious — the description only implies US scope via prose, leaving one of four 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?
States a specific verb and resource: search US trademarks under a given owner/applicant. The purpose is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling 'trademark_owner_profile', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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 provides concrete usage scenarios (competitor owner profiling, portfolio review, identifying high-frequency enforcers), which implies when to reach for it. But there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, especially versus 'trademark_owner_profile' and 'trademark_text_search', which share overlapping intent.
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.