DataNexus MCP

legal_fetch_patent_citations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch forward and backward citation chains for a specific patent. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. patent_number: Patent number in EPODOC format e.g. EP1000000 for European, CN120586032 for Chinese, JP2020123456 for Japanese, WO2020123456 for PCT, US10000000 for US. Required. jurisdiction: Optional hint — one of EP, US, WO, CN, JP, KR, etc. Default EP. The tool normalises the patent number automatically; passing CN120586032 with jurisdiction EP is valid. Returns citing patents (forward citations) and cited patents (backward citations) with filing dates and titles. Use this when building a prior art citation chain for a specific patent you already have. Use legal_search_patents_by_keyword instead when you need to find patents by topic not by citation. Verified source: EPO OPS. 24-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="legal_fetch_patent_citations", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jurisdiction`	No	Patent office code: EP, US, WO. Default EP. Optional.	EP
`patent_number`	Yes	Patent number e.g. EP3456789 or US10123456. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds: 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' Also discloses normalization behavior, cache duration (24-hour), and data source (EPO OPS).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense but slightly verbose with multiple examples and normalization explanation. However, it is well-structured with core purpose first, then parameter details, usage guidance, and fallback instructions.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description still explains return value structure: 'citing patents (forward citations) and cited patents (backward citations) with filing dates and titles.' Also covers error handling via report_feedback and data freshness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, description adds significant detail: EPODOC format examples for patent_number, default for jurisdiction, and normalization rule. Explains that jurisdiction is an optional hint and that even mismatched jurisdiction works.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Fetch forward and backward citation chains for a specific patent.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming legal_search_patents_by_keyword and legal_fetch_patent_by_number as alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use statement: 'Use this when building a prior art citation chain for a specific patent you already have.' Also states when to use the sibling tool and includes a fallback reporting mechanism.

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

All DataNexus MCP 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?