GleanMark USPTO Trademark Search

Look Up Nice Classes

get_nice_classes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get information about Nice Classification classes used for trademark registration. Lookup specific class numbers or search for classes by keyword.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_nice_classes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search_term`	No	Search term to find relevant classes (e.g., "software", "clothing", "restaurant")
`class_numbers`	No	Specific class numbers to look up (1-45)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`classes`	Yes
`open_in_gleanmark`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedMar 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "classes": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "category": {
+            "enum": [
+              "Goods",
+              "Services"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "class_number": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "examples": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "open_in_gleanmark": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "classes"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed6 schema fields changedMar 12, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / class_numbers / items / maximum
```
Added value: +45
```
- addedInput schema / properties / class_numbers / items / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / class_numbers / maxItems
```
Added value: +45
```
- changedInput schema / properties / search_term / description
```
Previous value: -"Search term to find relevant classes"New value: +"Search term to find relevant classes (e.g., \"software\", \"clothing\", \"restaurant\")"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / search_term / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
- addedInput schema / properties / search_term / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedFeb 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about trademark registration and the two lookup modes, but it does not disclose result limits, behavior when no matches are found, or whether both parameters can be combined. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the two invocation modes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with two optional, fully described parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage modes. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on combining or choosing between the two parameters and how the tool relates to the recommendation sibling.

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%: both search_term and class_numbers have detailed descriptions with examples, ranges, and length constraints. The description merely restates the two modes without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about Nice Classification classes used for trademark registration.' It clearly states the two lookup modes: specific class numbers or keyword search. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like recommend_nice_classes, but the direct lookup framing is clear enough.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool—when you need class information by number or keyword—but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as recommend_nice_classes or search_goods_services. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use notes.

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?