Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.gapup.mcp

patent_landscape

Read-only

Search, analyze and map patent landscapes across major jurisdictions (US, EP, WO, CN, JP, KR). Three modes: (1) search — find patents by keywords, company name or inventor name; (2) landscape — aggregate distributions: top assignees, top inventors, CPC class breakdown, filings by year, citation leaders, white-space innovation opportunities; (3) lookup — retrieve a specific patent by number (e.g. US10000000B2, EP3456789A1, WO2023/123456). Primary source: WIPO PatentScope (WO PCT, keyless). Optional sources: USPTO PatentsView (US, env PATENTSVIEW_API_KEY), EPO OPS (EP/WO, env EPO_OPS_CONSUMER_KEY + EPO_OPS_CONSUMER_SECRET), Lens.org (global, env LENS_API_TOKEN). Use cases: freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis, R&D gap identification, VC due diligence IP audit, competitor patent portfolio mapping, inventor network analysis. SLA: <=24s p95 (parallel fetches, 8s per source). Cache: 24h TTL (patent data stable). Quality score: 30 pts per retrieved source (max 90), +10 if >=10 patents, +10 bonus for landscape mode with non-empty top_assignees.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNosearch: keyword/inventor/assignee search; landscape: aggregate distributions; lookup: fetch by patent number. Default: "search"
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
queryYesKeywords, company/inventor name, or patent number (e.g. "machine learning", "Tesla Inc", "US10000000B2")
date_toNoISO date YYYY-MM-DD — latest filing date
date_fromNoISO date YYYY-MM-DD — earliest filing date
max_resultsNoMax patents to return (5-50). Default: 20
jurisdictionsNoJurisdictions to include. Default: ["US","EP","WO"]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
queryYes
statusYes
patentsYes
sourcesYes
landscapeNo
quality_scoreYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds detailed behavioral information: SLA, cache TTL, quality scoring, source dependencies, and async execution mode, far exceeding annotation expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (modes, sources, use cases, performance) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, output schema exists), the description covers modes, sources, performance, and async behavior. It could briefly mention error handling or empty results, but overall is sufficient.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds valuable context on modes and sources that enhances understanding, but does not duplicate schema descriptions.

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 does patent landscape search, analysis, and mapping across major jurisdictions, listing three distinct modes and common use cases. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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?

The description mentions explicit use cases like FTO analysis and competitor mapping, but does not directly contrast with sibling tools like patent_ownership_audit or when to avoid this tool. The async parameter is described well.

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

All gapup-mcp 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

C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources