Patent PreCheck

Patent PreCheck — start an Interactive Code Review

precheck_start_review

Return the URL where the user can start a paid (or promo-unlocked) Interactive Code Review that strengthens each pillar with evidence and produces a filing package. Use after precheck_score when the user wants to act on the result.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "precheck_start_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Optional email hint (prefill only; user confirms on signup).
`promo`	No	Optional access code the user already has. Do not invent or guess a code.
`report_id`	No	Optional free-score report id (PPC-YYYY-MM-DD-XXXXX) to carry forward.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / promo / description

Previous value: -"Optional promo / beta access code (e.g. Beta) to skip payment."New value: +"Optional access code the user already has. Do not invent or guess a code."

Changed3 schema fields changedJun 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional email hint (prefill only; user confirms on signup).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / promo

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional promo / beta access code (e.g. Beta) to skip payment.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / report_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional free-score report id (PPC-YYYY-MM-DD-XXXXX) to carry forward.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJun 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns a URL for the user to start a review, does not claim the tool itself charges the user, and notes the paid/promo-unlocked access model. This is sufficient transparency for a low-risk URL-returning operation, though it could mention whether invoking it creates any session or side effect.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior and commercial qualifier are front-loaded, and the usage context is delivered concisely in the second sentence.

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 simple URL-returning tool, the description gives the agent the purpose, the workflow context, and the return value type. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains what the tool produces. It does not specify the URL format or what happens after the user opens the URL, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (email, promo, report_id) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 ('Return the URL') and resource ('paid Interactive Code Review') and distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing what the review does: strengthen pillars with evidence and produce a filing package. It also anchors the tool in the workflow with 'Use after precheck_score', making its role clear among the sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'after precheck_score when the user wants to act on the result', giving a clear trigger and prerequisite. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the workflow context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is relevant.

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?