F
license-
qualityB
maintenanceUS patent search, full-text retrieval, claim extraction, citation graph, and weekly grant alerts for R\&D, biotech, and IP-law audiences.
Last updated
ipnex
Server Details
Cited, confidence-stamped patent intelligence over US university tech-transfer out-licensing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_technology fetches a single technology by docket, while search_licensable_ip performs a search across licensable IP. Their descriptions emphasize different inputs and outputs, leaving no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore_case: 'get_technology' and 'search_licensable_ip'. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server is at the low end. However, the scope is narrow (searching and retrieving patent technologies), so the count is appropriate but feels thin. Additional tools for browsing or listing could improve coverage.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the primary use cases: searching for licensable IP with rich facets and retrieving a specific technology by docket. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all available technologies or institutions, but the facets in search partially address this.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_technologyAInspect
Fetch the published view of one technology by its TTO docket. Cited + confidence-stamped; point-in-time via 'as_of'. Patent data: Google Patents (CC BY 4.0) + USPTO (public domain). Summaries are IPNEX-authored. TTO listing content is linked, not reproduced.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ISO-8601 timestamp for the point-in-time published view. | |
| docket | Yes | The TTO docket id, e.g. 'P160232US05', 'S17-467'. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the view is 'published', data sources (CC BY 4.0, public domain), summaries authorship, and that TTO listing content is linked not reproduced. It also mentions the 'as_of' parameter for point-in-time queries. This is transparent for a read-only fetch tool.
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 description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes necessary context without extraneous words. It is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description partially explains the output (cited, confidence-stamped, data sources) but does not detail the exact structure or fields returned. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates 'point-in-time' for as_of and gives examples for docket, but the schema already includes examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Fetch the published view of one technology by its TTO docket', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_licensable_ip' by specifying a single-docket fetch vs search.
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?
The description gives context on what the tool returns (cited, confidence-stamped, point-in-time) and data sources, implying when to use it (when you have a docket). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_licensable_ipAInspect
Search published, licensable US university patent technologies. Answers 'what currently-Active US university IP is licensable from X?'. Every result is cited (Google Patents / USPTO), confidence-stamped, and carries an 'ownership' signal flagging whether the patent's current assignee of record is the marketing institution or a third party, a 'status' interpretation flagging public-domain (term-expired) vs revivable fee-lapsed vs in-force patents, and an 'expiry' reading of how many years of exclusive term remain (expired / expiring_soon / active_term). The response also carries 'facets' -- corpus-level breakdowns over all matches by ownership, institution, status, status_detail, and expiry (the whole-query split, without paging). Patent data: Google Patents (CC BY 4.0) + USPTO (public domain). Summaries are IPNEX-authored. TTO listing content is linked, not reproduced.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (confidence-sorted). | |
| status | No | Legal-status substring, e.g. 'Active', 'Expired'. | |
| keyword | No | Substring matched against the title and our summary. | |
| institution | No | Marketing institution substring, e.g. 'Wisconsin', 'Stanford'. | |
| min_confidence | No | Drop results below this join confidence (0-1). | |
| licensable_from_institution | No | When true, exclude hits whose patent's current assignee of record is positively not the marketing institution (assigned-away or third-party owned); honest-unknowns are kept. Default false. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are cited, confidence-stamped, include ownership, status, expiry, and facets. Data sources are credited. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (non-destructive) or mention rate limits or auth requirements.
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 description is a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose. While slightly long, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but no wasted words.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It thoroughly covers citations, confidence, ownership, status, expiry, and facets. Data sources are also noted. For a search tool, this is very complete.
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% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description adds overall context but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states it searches 'published, licensable US university patent technologies' and answers a specific question ('what currently-Active US university IP is licensable from X?'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_technology' which likely retrieves a single technology detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding licensable IP but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to search vs. retrieve a specific technology). No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform patent search, portfolio analysis, technology trend tracking, and semantic prior-art search using USPTO data.Last updatedMIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceProvides access to USPTO enriched citation and office action citation APIs with smart context reduction and progressive disclosure workflows for patent citation analysis.Last updated6MIT
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceMCP server providing access to US patent data (2000-2024) via Rememberizer's knowledge retrieval tools, enabling semantic search and document management for patent information.Last updatedApache 2.0
