Skip to main content
Glama

GleanMark Trademark Search

by com.gleanmark

Search Goods Services

search_goods_services
Read-only

Full-text search over the goods/services recitations of 14M USPTO marks — answers "who else claims X in their goods?" (competitive landscape, descriptiveness/crowded-field evidence, ID-drafting precedent). Keyword-based: the text is tokenized and matched against each mark's indexed goods keywords (match_mode all = every keyword must appear, any = at least one). Rows return a short excerpt around the matched clause, NOT the full recitation. mode=count answers "how many marks claim X" with class/status breakdowns; mode=top_owners ranks the owners claiming X — neither pulls rows. This searches goods/services TEXT, not mark names — for mark-name conflicts use run_knockout_search or search_trademarks.

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: keyword tokenization and match modes, that rows return only excerpts not full recitations, that count/top_owners return no rows, and that it searches goods/services text rather than mark names. This fully informs the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral details in a dense but efficient paragraph. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it well-structured for agent consumption.

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 the tool having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all decision-relevant aspects: what it searches, how results are returned, mode differences, and alternative tools. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing to infer undocumented behavior.

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?

The schema already covers 88% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining tokenization, the semantics of match_mode (all vs any), and how mode changes output behavior. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 it performs full-text search over goods/services recitations of 14M USPTO marks, with specific use cases like competitive landscape and ID-drafting precedent. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it searches text not mark names and naming alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'for mark-name conflicts use run_knockout_search or search_trademarks.' It also explains the different modes (list_marks, count, top_owners) and what each answers, giving clear usage guidance.

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