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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful return-field information and a follow-up workflow, but does not explain match behavior, result ordering, or what happens when no inventor is found.
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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the return fields are listed compactly, and the cross-reference to patent_search is a single useful clause.
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?
For a simple read-only inventor lookup with three fully documented parameters, the description gives the essential search criteria, return fields, and a downstream usage step. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing the sibling patent_assignee_search or matching semantics, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents last_name, first_name, and limit. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, but it does confirm the optionality of first_name. This fits the baseline-3 expectation for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool finds inventors by last name and optional first name, identifies the resource, and reports the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling patent_assignee_search, though the inventor-focused wording implicitly separates it from patent_search.
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?
The description provides a concrete workflow: search for an inventor, then use the inventor name in patent_search to find their patents. This gives clear usage context, but it does not mention when to prefer patent_assignee_search or other inventor-related alternatives, so exclusions are missing.
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.