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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation and open-ended results. The description does not add behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as result format or pagination, so it adds minimal extra value.
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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs, the first stating purpose, the second listing arguments. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted 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 description covers purpose, usage context, and parameters well. However, it lacks any mention of the return format or structure (no output schema). While not critical for a search tool, a brief note about results would improve completeness.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: assignee with examples and company context, 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?
The description clearly states the tool finds patents owned by a company (assignee) and specifies its utility for IP portfolio and competitive-intelligence research. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_patent_details (single patent) and search_patents (general search).
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 explicitly states the tool is useful for IP portfolio and competitive-intelligence research, providing clear context for its use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer comparisons to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: each targets a specific search aspect (assignee, inventor, general) or details retrieval. However, search_patents can also be used to search by assignee or inventor via free-text, creating slight overlap with the specific tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_patents_by_assignee, get_patent_details). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
4 tools is on the lower end for a server covering 'patents-trademarks-ip'. It is plausible for a focused read-only patent search tool, but the scope implied by the name suggests more tools would be appropriate.
The tools cover basic patent search and retrieval, but omit trademark-related functionality despite the server name. Additionally, there are no tools for patent filing, status checking, or listing, leaving notable gaps for a comprehensive IP server.