Skip to main content
Glama

ipnex

by io.github.engrossa
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_licensable_ip

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return (confidence-sorted).
statusNoLegal-status substring, e.g. 'Active', 'Expired'.
keywordNoSubstring matched against the title and our summary.
institutionNoMarketing institution substring, e.g. 'Wisconsin', 'Stanford'.
min_confidenceNoDrop results below this join confidence (0-1).
licensable_from_institutionNoWhen 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / licensable_from_institution
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

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.

All ipnex 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