precheck_compare_to_patentCompare invention text to a known US patent: embedding similarity plus prior-art risk analysis (statute hints, overlap theme, distinction checklist). Use when the user names a specific reference patent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Source code or invention description (>= 10 chars). | |
| filename | No | Optional filename hint. | |
| patent_id | Yes | US patent id (e.g. US1234567B2). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the analysis components (embedding similarity, prior-art risk analysis, etc.) but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, modifies data, or any side effects. The description implies a read operation but lacks explicit behavioral traits.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous words, front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, the description covers key output components (embedding similarity, prior-art risk analysis, statute hints, overlap theme, distinction checklist). It also provides usage context. Missing details like output format or limitations, but adequate for a comparison tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal detail beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'code' is invention text and 'patent_id' is the target patent. No additional parameter semantics beyond schema descriptions.
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 compares invention text to a known US patent with specific analyses (embedding similarity, prior-art risk analysis, statute hints, overlap theme, distinction checklist). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use when the user names a specific reference patent.'
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when the user names a specific reference patent.' This clearly indicates the condition for use but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tools, though sibling context implies differentiation.
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.