Skip to main content
Glama

Google Patents

patents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search patents. 1 credit.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "patents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query
pageNo
countryNoCountry code, e.g. us, de, ru
languageNoLanguage code, e.g. en, ru (Russian). Does not change country

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / country / description
      Previous value: -"Country code, e.g. us, de, ru. Uses shared proxy routes"New value: +"Country code, e.g. us, de, ru"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important cost signal '1 credit,' but does not explain result limits, pagination behavior, or other operational details beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences with no wasted wording. The brevity is appropriate for this dimension, even though it contributes to gaps in completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, annotations are rich, and most parameters are documented in the schema. However, there is no output schema and the description says nothing about result format, pagination, or search behavior, leaving it only minimally viable.

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 coverage is 75%, with descriptions for q, country, and language, and min/max constraints for page. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search patents.' This clearly distinguishes it from most generic siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with search or scholar.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling search tools such as search, scholar, or research. The patent focus implies usage, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.