Patent PreCheck

Patent PreCheck — semantic corpus search

precheck_search_corpus

Fast semantic search against the 2,200,000+ prior-art corpus without LLM scoring. Returns ranked matches with similarity scores. Cheaper than precheck_score when you only need references.

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_search_corpus"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	Source code or invention description (>= 10 chars).
`tier`	No	Accepted for compatibility. Public corpus search is always free-depth; paid retrieval requires analyze entitlements.
`limit`	No	Max matches (1–20, default 12).
`filename`	No	Optional filename hint.
`confirm_upload`	Yes	Required true after the user confirms filename + size.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / tier / description

Previous value: -"Search tier. Defaults to free."New value: +"Accepted for compatibility. Public corpus search is always free-depth; paid retrieval requires analyze entitlements."

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

A4/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is fast, excludes LLM scoring, returns ranked matches with similarity scores, and is cheaper than precheck_score. It omits important behavior such as the required confirm_upload workflow (user confirmation of filename and size), whether the operation is read-only, and any rate or auth constraints.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: search scope, return format, and cost/routing versus precheck_score. The content is front-loaded with no redundant or filler language.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and sibling routing adequately. It does not explain the required confirm_upload confirmation flow, which is a meaningful omission for correct invocation, though the schema itself documents that parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting 'without LLM scoring' and 'similarity scores'—it does not clarify the roles of code, confirm_upload, limit, or tier beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb ('semantic search') and resource ('2,200,000+ prior-art corpus'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling precheck_score by being 'without LLM scoring' and 'cheaper when you only need references.' An agent can identify both what it does and when it differs from the scoring tool without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear usage condition: 'Cheaper than precheck_score when you only need references,' which routes the agent to the right sibling. However, it does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use if you need scored evaluation') or other prerequisites, leaving some inference to the agent.

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?