Skip to main content
Glama

DropTheHassle

by io.github.bosmdavid-gif
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check trademark

check_trademark
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up live identical or very similar word marks for a name in USPTO and EUIPO. Read-only. Does not charge. Works with no account. Each hit includes its Nice classes. When intended_use is given, each hit also includes a relevance note for that use. Tell the human the Nice classes and any relevance note, not only that a mark exists. The result lists the registers that answered and the ones not checked. USPTO is checked. EUIPO is checked only when keys are set. National offices are not checked; the result includes a TMview link for them. This is not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA word such as "feylet", or a domain such as "feylet.com". The check uses the second-level label.
intended_useNoOne short sentence on what is being built, such as an AI site builder or a dating app. Optional. When set, each hit includes a relevance note.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / intended_use
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "One short sentence on what is being built, such as an AI site builder or a dating app. Optional. When set, each hit includes a relevance note.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior: no charge, no account required, conditional EUIPO coverage, an explicit list of registers that did and did not answer, a TMview fallback link for national offices, and a 'not legal advice' disclaimer.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then output behavior in distinct sentences with no filler or repetition. It is on the longer side (eight sentences) but every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and does it well: hits include Nice classes and an optional relevance note, the result lists answering and unchecked registers, and national offices get a TMview link. An agent has enough to call it and report results correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the second-level-label rule and the relevance-note effect of intended_use. The description restates these effects without adding format syntax, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up live identical or very similar word marks for a name') plus the exact scope ('USPTO and EUIPO'). No sibling covers trademarks, so the agent can tell this apart from domain/site tools like search_domain without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear conditions for how the tool behaves: EUIPO 'checked only when keys are set', national offices not checked, and intended_use changes the output. It implies the use case (pre-naming lookup) but never states a when-to-use vs alternative formulation, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All DropTheHassle toolsInspect
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