GleanMark USPTO Trademark Search

Get a TTAB Document

get_ttab_document

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and read one specific TTABVUE filing by proceeding number and entry number. Returns filing metadata, a working USPTO TTABVUE viewer link, direct PDF link when available, extraction/readability status, document text, and optional query-centered excerpts. Use get_ttab_proceeding_details first when the entry number is unknown.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "proceeding_number": "<proceeding_number>",
      "entry_number": "<entry_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_ttab_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`max_chars`	No
`text_query`	No	Optional word or phrase; returns up to five excerpts centered on matches.
`entry_number`	Yes	TTABVUE entry number returned by get_ttab_proceeding_details.
`proceeding_number`	Yes	Seven- or eight-digit TTAB proceeding number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable output expectations beyond those annotations: filing metadata, viewer link, conditional 'direct PDF link when available', extraction/readability status, document text, and optional excerpts. This gives the agent a reliable picture of what a successful call returns.

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 three tight sentences: the action, the return payload, and the usage condition. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 read-only single-document retrieval with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what identifiers are needed, what the response contains, and how to discover the entry number. A minor gap is that max_chars truncation behavior is not explained, which could affect interpretation of 'document text'.

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 descriptions cover 3 of 4 parameters (proceeding_number, entry_number, text_query) with useful format and source context. The description reinforces these by mentioning 'proceeding number and entry number' and 'query-centered excerpts', but it adds no new meaning for max_chars, which remains undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Retrieve and read one specific TTABVUE filing', and identifies both required identifiers, proceeding number and entry number. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ttab_proceeding_details, which handles broader proceeding-level data.

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?

The description explicitly instructs agents to 'Use get_ttab_proceeding_details first when the entry number is unknown', directly addressing the main alternative and the condition for choosing it. The schema also reinforces that entry_number comes from get_ttab_proceeding_details, creating a clear workflow.

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?