A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceProvides AI agents with access to US patent data through 16 tools for search, citation analysis, technology trends, and portfolio comparisons via the free USPTO PatentsView API.
15
MIT
USPTO Patents
Server Details
US patent search, assignee portfolios, and citation graph via PatentsView.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- guptaprakhariitr/uspto-patents-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- uspto-patents-mcp
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
A3.7/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: assignee portfolio, general search, and single patent retrieval. No overlap in purpose, descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'uspto_' prefix and snake_case, but inconsistent verb/noun positions: two are noun phrases ('assignee_portfolio', 'patent_search') and one is verb_noun ('read_patent'). Minor deviation.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is a reasonable minimal set for a patent database: search, assignee-specific listing, and full patent retrieval. Could be slightly more expansive but not insufficient.
Completeness4/5
Covers core functionality: search by multiple criteria, get a patent by ID, and list all patents of an assignee. Missing patent classification or inventor-specific search, but adequate for primary use cases.
Available Tools
3 toolsuspto_assignee_portfolioAInspect
All patents assigned to a given entity. Paginates server-side; pass limit (max 5000).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| assignee | Yes | Assignee name, e.g. 'Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC'. |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the limit constraint (max 5000), but lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with high information density. Purpose and key parameter behavior are front-loaded with no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so the agent cannot infer return structure (fields, format). Pagination details are incomplete (no offset/cursor mechanism). Given two parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide full context for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; the description adds missing semantics for the 'limit' parameter (pagination context and max value) beyond the schema's numeric constraints. For the 'assignee' parameter, the schema already provides an example, so marginal additional value.
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 the tool returns 'all patents assigned to a given entity,' which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings uspto_patent_search (keyword search) and uspto_read_patent (single patent read) by specifying the focus on assignee-based listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
uspto_patent_searchBInspect
Search US patents by free-text query, assignee, inventor, and date range. Returns recent matches with title, date, abstract, and assignees.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text search over title and abstract. | |
| date_to | No | ||
| assignee | No | ||
| inventor | No | ||
| date_from | No | ISO YYYY-MM-DD. |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided to indicate read-only or destructive behavior. Description implies it's a search (likely read-only), but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given zero annotations, the description should carry this burden but offers minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence concisely covers purpose and output. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for input vs output) but is efficient and front-loaded with the verb 'Search'.
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?
No output schema exists, so description should explain return format. It mentions fields (title, date, abstract, assignees) but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or sorting (e.g., 'recent matches' is vague). With 7 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would improve agent decision-making.
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 description coverage is only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description briefly mentions key parameters (query, assignee, inventor, date range) but does not provide format details except for date_from (ISO format). Baseline 3 for low coverage, with modest compensation from description.
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?
Description clearly states it searches US patents by free-text query, assignee, inventor, and date range, returning specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uspto_assignee_portfolio (assignee-specific) and uspto_read_patent (single patent read), making the purpose and scope unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. However, the description implies it's the primary free-text search, and sibling names give some context. A clearer 'when to use' or exclusion criteria would improve this score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
uspto_read_patentAInspect
Fetch a single patent's full record: title, date, abstract, claims, assignees, inventors.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patent_number | Yes | US patent number, e.g. '11000000' or 'US11,000,000'. |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries burden. States 'Fetch' (read-only) and lists returned fields, but does not specify behavior on invalid patent numbers, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and key fields. No wasted words; every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), description covers what the tool does and what it returns. Could mention error handling or data source (USPTO database). Good but not exhaustive.
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 has 100% coverage with example format for patent_number. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline score 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'single patent's full record', and lists specific fields (title, date, abstract, claims, assignees, inventors). Distinct from siblings uspto_assignee_portfolio (assignee-focused) and uspto_patent_search (search).
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?
Implies use when you need full patent data for a known patent number, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives like uspto_patent_search for broader queries.
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-qualityFmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform patent search, portfolio analysis, technology trend tracking, and semantic prior-art search using USPTO data.MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceProvides access to USPTO enriched citation and office action citation APIs with smart context reduction and progressive disclosure workflows for patent citation analysis.6MIT
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceProvides access to USPTO patent and patent application data through multiple APIs, enabling search, retrieval, and analysis of patents, PTAB proceedings, and litigation data via natural language.72MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.