GleanMark Trademark Search

Search Trademarks

search_trademarks

Read-only

Search the USPTO trademark database by name — a RANKED similarity/prefix search that returns the closest whole-mark matches (14M records). It is NOT an exhaustive contains-scan: multi-word marks that merely contain the queried word rank low and are usually cut (a KWIK query will miss KWIK REWARDS / KWIK KOPY). To enumerate ALL live marks containing a word — including compounds and respelled forms via USPTO pseudo-mark equivalents — use list_marks_containing_term instead. Thin results here are never proof a name is absent or available; availability questions belong to run_knockout_search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return
`query`	Yes	Search query for trademark name
`nice_classes`	No	Filter by Nice Classification classes (1-45)
`status_filter`	No	Filter by trademark status	all

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes
`open_in_gleanmark`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds behavioral context about ranking behavior, non-exhaustiveness, and that thin results are not proof of absence. It also aligns with openWorldHint=false by explicitly noting the search is not exhaustive.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide key caveats and alternatives without waste. Each sentence adds valuable information.

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?

With the output schema covering return structure, the description covers usage limitations, alternative tools, and the non-exhaustive nature of results, which is sufficient for a search tool. No major gaps, though it could mention ordering criteria in more detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add extra parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches the USPTO trademark database by name, specifying it's a ranked similarity/prefix search for whole-mark matches. It distinguishes itself from an exhaustive contains-scan, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use the tool (not exhaustive for contains) and provides alternatives: list_marks_containing_term for enumerating all live marks containing a word, and run_knockout_search for availability questions. This gives clear usage boundaries.

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?