GleanMark Trademark Search

Deadlines for a Mark

get_mark_deadlines

Read-only

Get public, system-generated trademark deadlines for a specific mark. Accepts a serial number directly or resolves a mark name to a specific serial first. Does not expose any workspace, client, reminder, or user-created deadline data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of deadline rows to return. Defaults to 50.
`days_back`	No	How far back to include overdue or recently resolved deadlines. Defaults to 60 days.
`days_ahead`	No	How far forward to look. Defaults to 365 days.
`subject_name`	No	Specific mark text or serial-number-like query. Use when the user names the mark instead of giving a serial.
`serial_number`	No	USPTO serial number for the specific mark.
`status_filter`	No	Deadline status filter. Defaults to active.
`include_opposition_period`	No	Deprecated alias for include_informational_windows. Defaults to false.
`include_informational_windows`	No	Include informational review windows such as publication opposition windows. Defaults to false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`message`	No
`returned`	Yes
`days_back`	Yes
`deadlines`	Yes
`mark_name`	No
`days_ahead`	Yes
`is_partial`	Yes
`owner_name`	No
`serial_number`	No
`status_filter`	Yes
`counts_by_type`	Yes
`counts_by_status`	Yes
`open_in_gleanmark`	No
`include_opposition_period`	Yes
`include_informational_windows`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that deadlines are system-generated, that mark names are resolved to serial numbers first, and that no user-created data is exposed. These are meaningful details not covered by readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose and scope front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information—scope, resolution behavior, and exclusions—with no filler or repetition.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is complete for tool selection and invocation. It covers the target resource, scope, resolution behavior, and exclusions, which is sufficient to distinguish from siblings and use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between serial_number and subject_name (resolving a mark name to a serial first), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent decide which parameter to use.

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 it gets public, system-generated trademark deadlines for a specific mark, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_firm_deadlines and get_owner_deadlines by emphasizing mark-specific scope and excluding workspace/client/user-created data.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for public, system-generated mark deadlines) and an explicit exclusion (not for workspace/client/user data). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All GleanMark Trademark Search 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly defined scopes, but several search/count tools overlap (search_trademarks, phonetic_search, run_knockout_search, get_similar_marks) and owner/firm analytics tools have similar boundaries. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the large set increases the chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, search_, run_, analyze_, etc.). The only minor deviation is web_research, which is noun_verb, but it remains perfectly readable and consistent with the overall style.

Tool Count1/5

61 tools is extreme for any server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. Even for a comprehensive trademark platform, this number overwhelms agents with selection complexity and makes the toolset difficult to navigate.

Completeness2/5

Several tools launch asynchronous processes and instruct users to call status tools (get_prosecution_history_status, get_ttab_proceeding_analysis_status, get_office_action_research_status) that are not present in the toolset. Additionally, search_trademarks and phonetic_search reference list_marks_containing_term, which is also missing. These critical gaps cause agent failures when following the described workflows.

Resources

Need Help?