GleanMark Trademark Search

Search Marks by Claimed Color

search_claimed_colors

Read-only

Search or count US trademarks by the colours they claim, parsed from USPTO colour-claim statements. Neither TESS nor its successor offers this. TWO levels: level="family" (16 families; searching "red" also finds dark red, maroon, burgundy) and level="shade" (the exact term as claimed, e.g. "dark red"). Use match="all" for "claims at least these colours", match="only" for "claims exactly these and nothing else", match="only_bw" to also tolerate black/white. Set claimed=false to count marks whose statement DISCLAIMS colour. Modes: count, top_owners, list_marks, vocabulary (list the valid families or shades with corpus counts), explain_term (which family a shade belongs to), by_serial (what one mark claims).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	count = how many marks match. top_owners = who owns the most. list_marks = sample the matches. vocabulary = valid colour terms + corpus counts. explain_term = a shade's family. by_serial = what one mark claims.	count
`term`	No	Required for mode="explain_term", e.g. "maroon".
`level`	No	family = 16 broad families (red covers maroon). shade = the exact claimed term.	family
`limit`	No	Rows for top_owners, list_marks, vocabulary.
`match`	No	all = claims at least these. only = claims exactly these, nothing else. only_bw = exactly these, allowing black/white (usually background).	all
`colors`	No	Colour terms, e.g. ["orange","green","red"]. Must be real families or shades — call mode="vocabulary" if unsure. Omit to match every colour-claiming mark.
`status`	No	registered/pending are narrower than live. "How many live REGISTRATIONS" means status="registered".	any
`claimed`	No	false = count marks whose statement disclaims colour ("Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark").
`nice_class`	No	Restrict to one Nice class, e.g. "25" or "025".
`serial_number`	No	Eight-digit serial number for mode="by_serial".
`registration_number`	No	Registration number for mode="by_serial"; resolved to its serial number automatically.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description respects. Beyond that, it reveals substantial behavioral detail: family-level vs shade-level expansion, the match='only_bw' tolerance for black/white, the claimed=false inversion to disclaimers, and the distinct six modes with their meanings. This goes far beyond the annotation coverage.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states purpose, the second establishes uniqueness, then it succinctly covers level, match, claimed, and modes. The colon-based enumeration of modes is compact and scannable, and there is no repetition of schema field names or types.

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?

Given 11 parameters, 6 modes, and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers operational behavior: it explains what each mode does, the special parameter requirements (e.g., term for explain_term, serial_number for by_serial), the default status behavior, and the reverse mode via claimed=false. The only minor omission is detailed return formats, but the mode names largely imply those. Overall, it is remarkably complete for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning that the schema lacks: it explains the family/shade hierarchy with examples (red also finds dark red, maroon), clarifies match='all' vs 'only' vs 'only_bw', and ties term, serial_number, and registration_number to specific modes. It also notes that omitting colors matches every color-claiming mark, which is in the schema but reinforced here.

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 'Search or count US trademarks by the colours they claim, parsed from USPTO colour-claim statements,' providing a specific verb, resource, and data source. It also explicitly states that neither TESS nor its successor offers this capability, clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool by stating its unique value proposition ('Neither TESS nor its successor offers this') and explains mode semantics such as match='only_bw' and claimed=false. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of an explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives comparison.

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?