Patent PreCheck

Patent PreCheck — rejection pattern preview

precheck_rejection_patterns

Preview examination-risk signals: similar office-action rejections, abandonment patterns, and the primary statutory basis an examiner might cite (§101/§102/§103). Use after precheck_score to explain prosecution risk.

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": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "confirm_upload": "<confirm_upload>"
    },
    "name": "precheck_rejection_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	Source code or invention description (>= 10 chars).
`tier`	No	Analysis tier. Defaults to free.
`filename`	No	Optional filename hint.
`confirm_upload`	Yes	Required true after the user confirms filename + size.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_upload

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required true after the user confirms filename + size.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "code"
-]New value: +[
+  "code",
+  "confirm_upload"
+]

AddedJun 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Preview' strongly implies a read-only, diagnostic operation, and the listed signals describe the kind of output the agent can expect. It does not, however, disclose upload/data-handling implications, tier effects, or how the preview relates to an actual filing, which limits transparency.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the output preview front-loaded and the usage context in the second sentence. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 an agent, the description plus fully-documented schema covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what kind of outputs to expect. It is slightly incomplete only because there is no output schema and no annotation coverage to explain side effects or return format in more detail.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents code, tier, filename, and confirm_upload. The description adds no parameter-level detail; this is the baseline-3 case where the structured schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Preview') and a concrete resource ('examination-risk signals'), then enumerates what those signals are: similar office-action rejections, abandonment patterns, and statutory basis. This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishable from patent-search or scoring siblings, though it does not directly contrast them.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool after precheck_score and states the goal: explain prosecution risk. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative branching, but the sequence guidance is a clear usage directive.

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

All Patent PreCheck 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?