cypher_explain_patent_element
Show what a patent reference numeral describes.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Patent reference numeral, e.g. 400. | |
| npub | No | ||
| dpop_token | No |
cypher-mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (Show) without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. While it implies a read operation, this is not explicitly confirmed.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence. However, it could include slightly more information without becoming verbose, such as hinting at output or parameters.
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?
Given no output schema and three parameters (two undocumented), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns or the purpose of the optional parameters. The sibling tools list is large, and the description does not help differentiate this tool's specific role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only 'ref' has a description). The tool description adds no semantics for 'npub' and 'dpop_token', which remain unexplained. For 'ref', the schema already provides an example (e.g., 400), so the description offers no additional value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to show what a patent reference numeral describes. It uses a specific verb (Show) and resource (patent reference numeral), and given the sibling tools like cypher_list_patent_elements and cypher_upsert_patent_element, this tool's function is distinct, though not explicitly differentiated.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or context for invocation.
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
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.
Tool Count1/5
112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.
Completeness4/5
Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.