All patents assigned to a given entity. Paginates server-side; pass limit (max 5000).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| assignee | Yes | Assignee name, e.g. 'Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: assignee portfolio, general search, and single patent retrieval. No overlap in purpose, descriptions clearly differentiate them.
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.
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.
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.