Skip to main content
Glama

Trademark Screen

watch_mark

Start watching a mark for NEW confusingly similar filings. This CREATES a watch (a side effect — it stores the watch and sends a confirmation email with the stop link). Runs a baseline screen first — everything already on the register is marked seen, so you are only alerted on filings that appear AFTER the watch starts. Returns JSON with the watch id, its classes/threshold/schedule, and the baseline hits (for context). Check for new filings with check_watches, or let the scheduled checker run (daily by default, or weekly / every N days if you set a schedule). An email is required — it is the watch's owner, and the digest goes there (needs RESEND_API_KEY on the server; without it the watch still works and records hits, and alerts start once email is switched on). The email must be verified first — call request_watch_code, then pass the email and code (or the session token); without verification the watch is refused, so nobody can attach someone else's inbox. SCREEN ONLY — not clearance, not legal advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNo6-digit code from request_watch_code, for the email above
nameYesYour mark, e.g. NOVABREW
emailYesEmail address for new-filing alerts (required). Must be verified — see request_watch_code.
classesNoNice classes (1-45) if known; otherwise inferred
scheduleNoHow often the scheduled checker looks at this watch: 'daily' (every morning, default), 'weekly' (Tuesdays after the Gazette), or 'custom' (every scheduleDays days)daily
thresholdNoMinimum risk score to alert on (0.45 = MEDIUM and up, 0.65 = MEDIUM-HIGH and up, 0.85 = HIGH only)
scheduleDaysNoFor schedule 'custom': check every N days (2–30)
sessionTokenNo60-minute watch session token from a previous verification, for the email above
goodsDescriptionYesWhat you sell, e.g. 'music streaming app'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the write side effect (watch is stored and a confirmation email with stop link is sent), the baseline screen that marks existing register entries as seen, the server dependency RESEND_API_KEY, and the email-verification gate that prevents attaching someone else's inbox. It also states the return payload (watch id, classes/threshold/schedule, baseline hits).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the NEW-filings constraint, then prerequisites, then return shape. The parenthetical "(a side effect — it stores the watch...)" slightly repeats the mutation point already made by "CREATES", and the email section is dense, but almost every sentence carries operational value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: auth prerequisite chain (request_watch_code → code/sessionToken), degraded-mode behavior without RESEND_API_KEY, alert cadence, and the shape of the returned JSON.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: email is the watch's owner and digest destination, and code vs sessionToken are two interchangeable verification paths tied to request_watch_code. Schedule and threshold semantics are mostly restated from the schema rather than extended, keeping it below a 5.

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?

"Start watching a mark for NEW confusingly similar filings" gives a specific verb (start watching) and resource (a mark, producing a watch). The emphasis on NEW and the baseline-screen explanation distinguishes it from check_watches and list_watches, so an agent can route to it without comparing schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names alternatives and the conditions selecting them: use check_watches for new filings, let the scheduled checker run daily/weekly/custom, and call request_watch_code first for verification. Exclusions are explicit — without verification the watch is refused, and it is screen-only, not clearance or legal advice.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources