SiteCheck Company Records

EU trade mark search on EUIPO's official Trademark Search

gov_tmview_trademarks

Read-only

EU trade mark (EUTM) search on EUIPO's official Trademark Search API: word mark, status, kind and feature, Nice classes, applicants and representatives, application, registration and expiry dates, with a link to the EUIPO record. Contains search by default, exact name on request, optional status filter. EU trade marks only (no national offices). Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_ip_australia_trademarks when you need IP Australia trade mark records by trade mark number. 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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "gov_tmview_trademarks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page 1-100 (default 1)
`exact`	No	true: the whole word element must equal query (default false: contains)
`limit`	No	Results per page 1-50 (default 10)
`query`	Yes	Trade mark word element, e.g. lego (letters, digits, spaces and & . ' - only)
`status`	No	Optional status: RECEIVED, UNDER_EXAMINATION, APPLICATION_PUBLISHED, REGISTRATION_PENDING, REGISTERED, WITHDRAWN, REFUSED, OPPOSITION_PENDING, APPEALED, CANCELLATION_PENDING, CANCELLED, SURRENDERED, EXPIRED, ACCEPTED

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`count`	No
`items`	No
`query`	No
`total`	No
`source`	No
`offices`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`totalPages`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026
RemovedOct 30, 2026
First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: paid access via x402 at $0.002 USDC per successful call on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls not charged, plus that results link back to the EUIPO record. It does not discuss rate limits or result caps beyond what the schema states.

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 capability and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the coverage/behaviour clause, sibling routing and pricing. Each sentence carries information, though the pricing tail is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it still notes the EUIPO record link. Combined with full schema coverage, EU-only scope and cost disclosure, an agent has what it needs to call correctly and to anticipate being charged.

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 five parameters already document their meaning, ranges and the status vocabulary. The description's 'search by default, exact name on request, optional status filter' restates the exact and status parameters rather than adding new semantics, which is the expected baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource (EU trade mark / EUTM search) and the exact source (EUIPO's official Trademark Search API), then enumerates the searchable fields. It explicitly bounds scope to EU trade marks with 'no national offices', so an agent can distinguish it from the IP Australia sibling without opening either 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 clear routing guidance, naming gov_ip_australia_trademarks as the alternative when IP Australia records by trade mark number are needed, and it states the EU-only exclusion. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool within the EUIPO domain (e.g. for national-office marks there is no alternative given), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?