WritersLogic verifiable AI agents

patent-strategy

Patent Strategy Pack — Both sides of a blocking patent in one call: pre-priority-date prior art charted against every claim element, and an all-elements freedom-to-operate map with three engineering design-arounds. Runs prior-art-invalidator ($1.00) + patent-design-around ($2.00) in one paid call for 20% less than buying them separately. Charged only when every member succeeds.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "proposedProductDescription": "<proposedProductDescription>"
    },
    "name": "patent-strategy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jurisdiction`	No	Defaults to US.
`patentNumber`	No	Publication number such as US7629993B2. Used to read the claims from Google Patents when patentClaimsText is omitted.
`priorityDate`	No	Earliest effective filing/priority date, YYYY-MM-DD. Only works published strictly before it count. Optional when patentNumber is given; a supplied date wins over the Google Patents date and a disagreement is reported.
`annualRevenueUsd`	No	Annual revenue that depends on the product; sizes the dollar exposure in the headline.
`patentClaimsText`	No	Numbered claims (at least the independent claims). Optional when patentNumber is given: the claims are then read from Google Patents.
`assumedRoyaltyPct`	No	Assumed running royalty as a percent of revenue, for the exposure illustration.
`proposedProductDescription`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior: per-member pricing ($1.00 + $2.00), the 20% bundle discount, and that billing occurs only when every member succeeds. It says nothing about latency, failure modes when one member fails, or what the combined response looks like.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable before the pricing detail. The pricing sentence is justified because it drives tool selection, though the phrasing is slightly promotional.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully enumerates the deliverables (prior-art chart, FTO map, three design-arounds), which substitutes for a missing output schema. Gaps remain around failure handling when one bundled member fails and around the jurisdiction/royalty inputs.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including defaults, patterns, and the patentNumber/patentClaimsText fallback. The description adds only the framing that prior art is measured against the priority date; it contributes no new meaning about the remaining parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it produces a prior-art chart against every claim element plus an all-elements freedom-to-operate map with three design-arounds. It also names the two sibling tools it bundles (prior-art-invalidator, patent-design-around), so an agent can distinguish it from calling those individually.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Frames the use case clearly — 'both sides of a blocking patent in one call' — and gives a concrete economic reason to prefer it over the two siblings bought separately (20% cheaper). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. when only prior art or only a design-around is needed.

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

All WritersLogic verifiable AI agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?