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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description is consistent ('Find patents') but does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema provide. No contradictions.
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: a one-line purpose with use cases followed by parameter docs in a clear arg-style. 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?
For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and use cases. It could mention return format or pagination, but given the simplicity and sibling context, 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It gives clear natural language explanations for both parameters: inventor with examples ('John Carmack', 'Shinya Yamanaka') and max_results with range and default ('1-30, default 15').
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 by a named inventor' with specific verb and resource. It also mentions use cases (talent/expert discovery, prior-art research) that distinguish it from siblings like find_patents_by_assignee and search_patents.
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 calls out relevant scenarios (talent/expert discovery, prior-art research) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.