uspto_read_patent
Fetch a single patent's full record: title, date, abstract, claims, assignees, inventors.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patent_number | Yes | US patent number, e.g. '11000000' or 'US11,000,000'. |
USPTO Patents
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
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.