DataNexus MCP

legal_search_patents_by_keyword

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search patents by keyword across EPO, USPTO, or WIPO. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. Returns up to 10 matches. keywords: Search terms describing the invention e.g. neural network image classification. Required. jurisdiction: One of EP, US, or WO. Optional. Default EP. date_from: Earliest filing date in ISO 8601 format e.g. 2020-01-31. Optional, defaults to no lower bound. Returns patent numbers, titles, and filing dates. Use this when finding prior art or exploring a technology landscape without a specific number. Use legal_fetch_patent_by_number instead when you have the patent number already. Verified source: EPO OPS + USPTO. 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_search_patents_by_keyword", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keywords`	Yes	Search keyword or phrase e.g. CRISPR gene editing. Required.
`date_from`	No	Earliest filing date ISO 8601 e.g. 2020-01-31. Optional.
`jurisdiction`	No	Patent office code: EP, US, WO. Default EP. Optional.	EP

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description declares read-only behavior, no side effects, idempotency, and a limit of 10 matches. It adds context beyond annotations by specifying the limits, verified source (EPO OPS + USPTO), and 24-hour cache, which annotations do not cover.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then behavior, then parameters, then return info, then usage guidance. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose with the feedback paragraph. It could be tightened but remains effective.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return fields, usage context, limitations (10 matches, 24-hour cache), source verification, and a fallback feedback mechanism. It is complete for an intelligent agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples for keywords, clarifying options for jurisdiction (EP, US, WO), and noting the default behavior for date_from ('no lower bound'). This goes slightly beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Search patents by keyword across EPO, USPTO, or WIPO', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling legal_fetch_patent_by_number by noting that this tool is for keyword-based search without a specific patent number.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when finding prior art or exploring a technology landscape without a specific number.' It also provides an alternative: 'Use legal_fetch_patent_by_number instead when you have the patent number already.'

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?