Skip to main content
Glama

GleanMark Trademark Search

Search Goods Services

search_goods_services
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text search over the goods and services identifications of 14M USPTO marks, for questions such as which other owners claim a product in their goods (competitive landscape, descriptiveness or crowded-field evidence, identification drafting precedent). Keyword-based: the query is tokenized and matched against each mark's indexed goods keywords (match_mode all requires every keyword, any requires at least one). Rows include a short excerpt around the matched clause, not the full identification. mode=count returns how many marks claim the goods, with class and status breakdowns; mode=top_owners ranks the owners claiming them; neither returns rows. Searches goods and services text, not mark names; run_knockout_search and search_trademarks search mark names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNolist_marks returns rows; count returns totals + class/status breakdowns only; top_owners ranks owners by matching-mark count.list_marks
sortNorelevance
textYesGoods/services text to search for (e.g. "anti-tarnish", "vegan leather handbags"). Words of 3+ characters are matched as keywords.
limitNoMax rows for list_marks mode (default 20).
match_modeNoall = every keyword must appear in the recitation (default); any = at least one.all
nice_classesNoOptional Nice class filter (e.g. [14] or ["014"]).
status_filterNolive = Registered + Pending; dead = Cancelled/Abandoned/Expired.all
owner_containsNoOptional: only marks whose owner name contains this text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: tokenization, match_mode semantics, excerpt-only rows, mode-specific outputs (counts with breakdowns, top owners), and the exclusion of mark names. This is well beyond the annotations and leaves little unknown, though pagination/empty-result behavior is not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed yet each sentence earns its place: purpose, matching semantics, output modes, and sibling differentiation are each covered without repetition. Slightly longer than minimal but appropriate for the tool's complexity and 8 parameters.

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?

For a search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behaviors: what is searched, how matching works, what each mode returns, filtering options, and the key exclusion (mark names). An agent can confidently call this tool and interpret results correctly based on the description alone.

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 high (88%), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that match_mode 'all' requires every keyword, 'any' at least one; clarifies that mode=count returns totals with class/status breakdowns and mode=top_owners ranks owners; and notes that limit applies to list_marks mode. This supplements the schema meaningfully.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (goods and services identifications of USPTO marks), and immediately differentiates from siblings by noting it searches goods text, not mark names, naming run_knockout_search and search_trademarks explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Gives explicit use cases (competitive landscape, descriptiveness, crowded-field evidence, drafting precedent) and names the alternatives that handle mark-name search. It also clarifies what the tool does not do, leaving no doubt about when to choose it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources