Skip to main content
Glama

Patent PreCheck

by io.github.Patent-PreCheck
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Patent PreCheck — prior-art density and risk profile

precheck_score

Run a prior-art density / risk-profile pre-check on source code or an invention description. Returns a 0–100 directional score across the four USPTO statutory pillars (§101 eligibility, §102 novelty, §103 non-obviousness, §101 utility), a separate §112 filing-readiness signal, the band (Not Ready → File Ready), the pillar that holds the band back, opportunities to thicken the technical description, and a count of prior-art matches consulted. Show filename + size and get user yes, then pass confirm_upload: true. Pass the text inline via code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe source code or invention description to analyze (>= 10 chars).
tierNoAnalysis tier. Defaults to free; paid tiers require server-side entitlement.
filenameNoOptional filename hint (e.g. main.ts) used for language/context.
confirm_uploadYesRequired true after the user confirms filename + size. Nothing is uploaded without it.
invention_kindNoOptional invention category. Sets language and scoring prompts. Prior-art math still follows the disclosure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_upload
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required true after the user confirms filename + size. Nothing is uploaded without it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "code"
-]New value: +[
+  "code",
+  "confirm_upload"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / invention_kind
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional invention category. Sets language and scoring prompts. Prior-art math still follows the disclosure.",
+  "enum": [
+    "software",
+    "physical",
+    "process",
+    "unsure"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the requirement for user confirmation ('get user yes') and the implication that nothing is uploaded without confirm_upload. It also implies analysis rather than modification by using 'run a pre-check.' However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential side effects, or any rate limits. The description is partially transparent but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is information-dense and well-organized: it starts with the purpose, lists return values, and ends with usage instructions. It is somewhat long but each sentence contributes value—no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary details, making it easy to scan.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does a good job of covering the essential return values (score, pillars, band, etc.) and the required confirmation workflow. It explains what the tool returns and how to invoke it correctly. While it doesn't interpret the score or band semantics, that's not necessary for invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool effectively.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds some operational context, such as 'pass the text inline via `code`' and the flow for confirm_upload, but these largely restate what the schema conveys. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description's contribution is marginal, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run a prior-art density / risk-profile pre-check on source code or an invention description.' It also enumerates specific return values (score across four pillars, filing-readiness signal, band, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or lookup. The description is not a tautology and provides concrete, scoped behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides concrete usage steps: 'Show filename + size and get user yes, then pass confirm_upload: true. Pass the text inline via `code`.' These are clear operational instructions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like precheck_prior_art or precheck_pillars, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is helpful but lacks comparative context.

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

All Patent PreCheck toolsInspect
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