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.
| 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'. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore_case: 'get_technology' and 'search_licensable_ip'. The naming is uniform and predictable.
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.
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.