GleanMark Trademark Search

Deadlines for an Owner

get_owner_deadlines

Read-only

Get public, system-generated trademark deadlines across a specific owner’s marks. Uses public USPTO owner resolution only. 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.
`owner_name`	Yes	Owner name to resolve and analyze.
`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
`days_ahead`	Yes
`is_partial`	Yes
`owner_name`	Yes
`status_filter`	Yes
`counts_by_type`	Yes
`counts_by_status`	Yes
`owner_detail_url`	No
`open_in_gleanmark`	No
`matched_mark_count`	Yes
`include_opposition_period`	Yes
`include_informational_windows`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: data source (public USPTO owner resolution), nature (system-generated), and explicit exclusion of private workspace data. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the data scope and what the tool will not return.

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, front-loaded with the core function, and every clause adds value. No redundant information or filler.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations declaring safe read behavior, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and exclusions. It is complete for an owner-level read-only query tool, and the exclusion of workspace data helps avoid misuse.

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% with all seven parameters fully documented, so the description does not need to compensate. The description's phrase 'across a specific owner’s marks' adds mild context for owner_name but does not add new parameter-level semantics 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 the tool gets public, system-generated trademark deadlines across a specific owner's marks, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_mark_deadlines and get_firm_deadlines by emphasizing owner-level scope and public system-generated 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 implies when to use this tool: for owner-level public USPTO deadlines, not workspace/client/reminder data. It explicitly states exclusions ('Does not expose any workspace, client, reminder, or user-created deadline data'), though it doesn't name alternative sibling tools directly.

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?