claimhit_get_historyGet the user's recent patent scans. Returns patent numbers, dates, and top results from past searches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recent searches to return (default 5, max 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns patent numbers, dates, and top results, giving some behavioral context, but does not elaborate on ordering, time window, or other details.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant words. It is approximately 14 words, making it perfectly concise and easy to scan.
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?
For a simple one-parameter history tool with comprehensive annotations and schema coverage, the description sufficiently communicates functionality and return fields. There is minor ambiguity around 'top results', but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?
The only parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the schema (default 5, max 20), so the description does not need to add anything. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'user's recent patent scans', and explicitly lists return contents (patent numbers, dates, top results). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search (new searches) and get_result (specific result).
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?
The description establishes clear context as a history/listing tool, implying it should be used for viewing past scans rather than performing new ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: search, rerun, get_result, and get_history all deal with searches but have clear purposes. The slight overlap between get_result and get_history (both return past search data) could cause minor confusion, but descriptions clarify the difference.
All tools share the claimhit_ prefix, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (get_credits, get_history, generate_chart, rerun_search). The bare 'claimhit_search' deviates from the verb_noun pattern, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for patent infringement analysis. Each tool serves a clear function in the workflow: search, refine, retrieve, chart, and manage account.
The core lifecycle is covered: search, rerun, retrieve results, and generate charts. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to list or retrieve previously generated charts, but the existing tools allow agents to work around this.