Skip to main content
Glama

Company Intelligence Tools — Zinin M2M Hub

by com.timzinin.api

Patent Filing Monitor

patent-monitor
Read-only

Watch keywords or technologies for newly granted US patents. Bring your own free PatentsView API key — get patent id, title, grant date, assignee and a direct Google Patents link for every match, sorted by most recent. Official PatentsView Search API (USPTO-backed). — $0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many patents to fetch per query, most recently granted first.
queriesYesTech keywords or technologies to watch (e.g. `quantum computing`, `mRNA vaccine`). One or more matching patent rows per query.
sinceDaysNoOnly include patents granted within N days.
maxConcurrencyNoHow many queries to process in parallel.
patentsviewApiKeyNoOptional. Leave empty to use the keyless Google Patents source (worldwide). Provide your own free PatentsView key (https://patentsview.org/query-builder) to use the official USPTO-backed source (US patents, more results/query). Sent only in the X-Api-Key header — never logged or stored.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing cost ($0.02/call), payment method (x402 USDC), data source (PatentsView API, USPTO-backed), and the need for an API key. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes relevant details (API key, output fields, cost) but the pricing and payment method could be considered extraneous for core functionality. Minimal waste, but not perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return structure. It lists fields but does not specify the format (e.g., array of objects) or mention pagination, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not fully complete given the lack of an output schema.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the Google Patents link in output, but does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 watches keywords for newly granted US patents, lists specific fields returned (patent id, title, grant date, assignee, Google Patents link), and is distinct from all sibling tools (none are patent-specific). This meets the 'specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for patent monitoring by keywords, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other alert tools). There are no sibling patent tools, so the context is implicit, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Company Intelligence Tools — Zinin M2M Hub toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between company-lookup and company-registry-enricher, and between individual signal tools and composite rollups. The descriptive names help differentiate, but the boundary between one-off screenings and alert/rollup tools requires careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent pattern of hyphenated lowercase nouns (e.g., company-lookup, funding-alert, sanctions-screening). The one exception, pricing_info, uses an underscore, creating a minor deviation from the otherwise uniform naming style.

Tool Count4/5

With 20 tools, the server is on the higher end of typical scope but justified for a comprehensive company intelligence bundle. Each tool covers a distinct or complementary aspect of company research, so the count feels purposeful rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers company lookup, registry, hiring, funding, sanctions, litigation, patents, contacts, new company detection, and email verification—a broad and well-rounded surface for due diligence and sales intelligence. Composite tools like intent-signal-aggregator and lead-list-qualifier tie these together effectively, leaving no major dead ends.

Resources