GleanMark USPTO Trademark Search

Deadline Satisfaction Reference

get_deadline_satisfaction_mapping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check what role a USPTO event code plays for a deadline type (satisfies it, triggers it, abandons it, suspends it) per the deadline vocabulary table deadline_event_roles — office action response, opposition period, Statement of Use, Section 8/9/15, post-registration office action, ITU notice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "event_code": "<event_code>",
      "deadline_type": "<deadline_type>"
    },
    "name": "get_deadline_satisfaction_mapping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`event_code`	Yes	USPTO event code to inspect.
`deadline_type`	Yes	Deadline family to test against.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / deadline_type / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "office_action_response",
-  "opposition_period",
-  "section_15_initial",
-  "section_8_and_9_renewal",
-  "section_8_and_9_subsequent",
-  "section_8_initial"
-]New value: +[
+  "office_action_response",
+  "opposition_period",
+  "section_15_initial",
+  "section_8_and_9_renewal",
+  "section_8_and_9_subsequent",
+  "section_8_initial",
+  "statement_of_use",
+  "post_registration_office_action",
+  "itu_notice_response"
+]

AddedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe lookup nature is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the specific table (deadline_event_roles) and the closed vocabulary scope, but does not address edge cases like unknown event codes or missing mappings.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the domain table, the possible roles, and the deadline families in a compact format.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the role outcomes and deadline categories, though it leaves the exact return shape unspecified since there is no output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter concepts and adds grouped examples of deadline types, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource (the role of a USPTO event code for a deadline type) and enumerates the exact role outcomes: satisfies, triggers, abandons, suspends. It is clearly distinct from sibling lookup tools like get_event_status_mapping because it is anchored to the deadline_event_roles vocabulary table.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: this is a reference lookup for event-code-to-deadline-type relationships. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the deadline vocabulary framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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

All GleanMark USPTO Trademark Search tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?