Find inventors by last name (and optional first name). Returns inventor id, name, location, and total patent count. Use the inventor name in patent_search to find their patents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return (default 25, max 100). | |
| last_name | Yes | Inventor last name (required). | |
| first_name | No | Optional inventor first name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields (inventor id, name, location, total patent count), which matters because there is no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the return shape and the follow-up routing hint. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields, and it closes the loop by pointing to patent_search for the next step. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description only restates last_name/first_name, adding no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find inventors') plus the exact filter keys (last name, optional first name), which separates it from patent_assignee_search and patent_search 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives clear forward guidance ('Use the inventor name in patent_search to find their patents'), establishing the inventor-lookup-first workflow. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the sibling patent_assignee_search, so no explicit exclusion is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.