SiteCheck Company Records

IP Australia trade mark records by trade mark number

gov_ip_australia_trademarks

Read-only

IP Australia trade mark records by trade mark number from the IPGOD open data table on data.gov.au (2017 edition, marked superseded): status, live or dead, mark type, lodgement and registration dates, Madrid indicator. Applicant names are not in this table. Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_tmview_trademarks when you need EU trade mark search on EUIPO's official Trademark Search; gov_australia_data_gov_au when you need Australian government open datasets from data.gov.au. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "tmNumber": "<tmNumber>"
    },
    "name": "gov_ip_australia_trademarks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tmNumber`	Yes	Australian trade mark number, digits only, up to 9 digits

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`records`	No
`tmNumber`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world. The description adds material behavior an agent cannot get elsewhere: the data is a superseded 2017 edition, applicant names are absent from the table (a hard scope limit for name-based research), and each successful call costs $0.002 USDC via x402 with failures not charged. The cost and staleness disclosures are exactly the kind of context annotations do not carry.

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?

Purpose and data scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the sibling routing and pricing deferred to the end. The middle sentence is a run-on list of caveats (superseded edition, missing applicant names, field list) that could be tightened, but no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, an agent needs provenance, vintage, coverage limits, and cost, and all four are present. Nothing required to call it correctly or to decide whether to call it at all is left unstated.

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 single tmNumber parameter is fully documented in the schema as digits only, up to 9 digits. The description adds no format, normalization, or lookup-behavior detail beyond that, so it sits at the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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?

Names a specific resource (IP Australia trade mark records), a specific lookup key (trade mark number), and a specific source (IPGOD open data table on data.gov.au, 2017 edition). It also enumerates the fields returned (status, live/dead, mark type, lodgement/registration dates, Madrid indicator), so an agent can distinguish it from other trademark tools without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes away two siblings by naming them and the different need each serves (gov_tmview_trademarks for EUIPO search, gov_australia_data_gov_au for generic Australian datasets). What is missing is a direct 'use this when' statement for the positive case and any note on when the superseded 2017 vintage makes the tool unsuitable, which is the main eligibility question here.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records 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?