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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and variability. The description adds return fields but no additional behavioral insights (e.g., rate limits, pagination). It is adequate but not enhanced 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?
The description is succinct, with a clear two-part structure: purpose/return fields and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 search tool with two parameters and annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it searches, parameters, and return fields. It lacks error handling or performance notes, but overall completeness 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains query as free-text with examples, and max_results with range and default. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare parameter 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 searches worldwide patents by various criteria (keyword, inventor, assignee, phrase) using Google Patents, listing specific return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_patents_by_assignee and search_inventor, which are more targeted.
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 implies use for broad patent searches, and the sibling tools cover specific fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as using search_inventor for inventor-specific queries.
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.