ipnex

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

Name	Required	Description
`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.

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 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

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.

Resources

Need Help?