Skip to main content
Glama

GleanMark Trademark Search

by com.gleanmark

Likely Related Parties for an Owner

get_owner_related_parties
Read-only

Find entities likely related to a trademark owner (predecessors, subsidiaries, sister companies) from USPTO evidence: shared ownership history on the same marks, shared filing addresses (agent addresses excluded), and shared distinctive name tokens. Returns evidence and a high/possible confidence tier per hit — treat 'possible' as tentative. Use when analyzing an owner's full corporate family, portfolio scope, or whether two owners of similar marks are actually affiliated. Pass the owner name exactly as recorded (resolve with resolve_trademark_subject first if ambiguous).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum related parties to return
owner_nameYesOwner name as recorded at the USPTO (e.g., "Netflix, Inc."). Normalized internally to the owner key.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the evidence types used, the exclusion of agent addresses, and the confidence tiers ('high/possible'). It also warns that 'possible' results are tentative, setting clear expectations about output reliability.

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?

Three sentences that pack a dense payload: purpose, methodology, output caveats, and usage guidance. No redundant filler; every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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 lacking an output schema, the description communicates what the tool returns (evidence + confidence tier) and how to interpret it. The context signals (read-only, non-destructive) align with the described behavior. For a complex analytical tool, this provides adequate context for an agent to invoke it 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 valuable guidance for owner_name by emphasizing exact-as-recorded matching and suggesting resolve_trademark_subject for ambiguity, which compensates for schema's generic description. The limit parameter is already fully documented in 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's purpose: finding entities likely related to a trademark owner via USPTO evidence, with specific signals (shared ownership history, addresses, name tokens). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_owner_filing_trends or get_mark_owner_landscape by focusing on corporate family relationships.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are provided (analyzing corporate family, portfolio scope, affiliation between owners) and it instructs to resolve ambiguous owner names with resolve_trademark_subject first. This is precise, actionable guidance that helps an agent decide when to use this tool.

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 toolsInspect
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