patents-trademarks-ip-mcp-server
Server Details
Patent & trademark IP search — patents, assignees, and inventors via Google Patents.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search by assignee, get details by patent ID, search by inventor, and general keyword search. While search_patents could theoretically cover the others via query, descriptions clarify the specialized tools, so ambiguity is minimal.
All tools use snake_case and verb_noun pattern. However, there is slight variation in verbs ('find', 'get', 'search') and 'search_inventor' could be misread as searching for an inventor rather than patents. Overall pattern is consistent and readable.
With 4 tools, the set covers the core patent lookup and search operations without being overly heavy. The server's name suggests broader IP coverage, but the tool count is appropriate for the narrowed scope of patents.
The tools cover basic patent search and retrieval (by assignee, inventor, keyword, and ID), but the server name includes trademarks and IP, which are missing. For patents alone, there is no filtering by classification or full-text retrieval, but the essential read operations are present.
Available Tools
4 toolsfind_patents_by_assigneeARead-onlyInspect
Find patents owned by a company or organization (assignee). Useful for IP portfolio and competitive-intelligence research.
Args: assignee: Company / organization name (e.g. "NVIDIA", "Genentech", "Samsung Electronics"). max_results: Maximum number of patents to return (1-30, default 15).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignee | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no results are found. The description is neutral and does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal added value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two clearly separated sections: a purpose statement followed by an Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain return values or format. It does not. Also, with 'openWorldHint' true, the behavior might vary, but no context is given about pagination, error handling, or result set limits beyond max_results. For a simple search tool, it covers the basics but lacks completeness for agents needing to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'assignee' is defined as a company/organization name with concrete examples (e.g., 'NVIDIA'), and 'max_results' is given a range (1-30) and default (15). This adds essential meaning that the JSON schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Find patents owned by a company or organization (assignee)', which specifies the action and resource. It also hints at use cases like IP portfolio research, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_patents', which may also search by assignee. The purpose is clear but lacks precise distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is 'useful for IP portfolio and competitive-intelligence research', but this is vague and does not specify when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like 'search_patents' or 'search_inventor'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_patent_detailsARead-onlyInspect
Look up a specific patent by its publication number and return its metadata.
Args: patent_id: Patent publication number (e.g. "US9876543B2", "EP1234567A1", "WO2020123456A1").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patent_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds only 'return its metadata' without further details on behavior (e.g., error handling, completeness of metadata). Minimal added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose and a bullet for the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage. It could mention what happens if the patent is not found, but overall it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter 'patent_id' with clear examples and format (e.g., US9876543B2). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it looks up a specific patent by publication number and returns metadata. The verb 'look up' and resource 'patent' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that search by assignee, inventor, or keywords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies using the tool when you have a patent publication number. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tool names imply that for searches by criteria, other tools should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_inventorARead-onlyInspect
Find patents by a named inventor. Useful for talent/expert discovery and prior-art research.
Args: inventor: Inventor full name (e.g. "John Carmack", "Shinya Yamanaka"). max_results: Maximum number of patents to return (1-30, default 15).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inventor | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or result ordering, which are relevant for an agent to use the tool properly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus an Args block. The purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple search tool, but lacks information about return format or pagination. With no output schema, an agent may need more clues about the response structure. However, the parameters are well-explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'inventor' as a full name with examples and 'max_results' with range and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Find patents by a named inventor,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_patents_by_assignee (different search criterion) and get_patent_details (specific patent retrieval).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions use cases 'talent/expert discovery and prior-art research,' providing context. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_patentsARead-onlyInspect
Search worldwide patents by keyword, inventor, assignee, or phrase using Google Patents. Returns patent id, title, assignee, inventor, filing/publication dates, and a snippet.
Args: query: Free-text query (e.g. "quantum error correction", "lithium battery anode"). max_results: Maximum number of patents to return (1-30, default 10).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals return fields (patent id, title, assignee, inventor, dates, snippet) beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for return fields, and two for parameter details. No redundant information, well-structured with front-loaded key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. Parameter details are covered. The source (Google Patents) is mentioned. For a search tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: query is free-text with examples, max_results has range 1-30 and default 10. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search worldwide patents by keyword, inventor, assignee, or phrase using Google Patents.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (patents), and multiple search dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_patents_by_assignee and search_inventor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter guidance with example queries and numeric constraints for max_results. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to sibling tools, relying on implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!