get_prosecution_timelineGet the prosecution timeline for a trademark — chronological list of office actions, responses, and key events (publication, registration, suspension, etc.). Raw data without AI analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial_number | Yes | USPTO serial number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that the output is 'raw data without AI analysis' and describes the chronological structure, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not discuss limits or auth, but that is not critical here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying statement about raw data. There is zero waste and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand what the tool does and what to expect (chronological list of events). It could be more specific about scope or limitations, but it is largely complete for a simple timeline retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter serial_number, which is already described as a 'USPTO serial number.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond confirming it is for a trademark, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the prosecution timeline for a trademark' and specifies the content as a 'chronological list of office actions, responses, and key events.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it provides 'Raw data without AI analysis,' setting it apart from analysis-focused tools like analyze_prosecution_history and get_mark_prosecution_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for raw timeline data, and indicates a when-not by saying 'without AI analysis.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for analysis, so it falls short of the highest standard for explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.