Detalhes completos de um processo de registro de marca no INPI pelo número do processo (situação, depósito, concessão, vigência, titulares, classes Nice/Viena, petições, publicações).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| numero_processo | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the content provided (situação, depósito, concessão, vigência, titulares, classes Nice/Vienna, petições, publicações), going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose, input, and expected output content in a compact parenthetical list. There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description richly enumerates the types of data returned, making the tool's behavior clear. With one simple parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The only parameter 'numero_processo' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description clarifies it is the process number, but provides no format, examples, or additional constraints, so it only minimally compensates for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Detalhes completos') and a clear resource ('processo de registro de marca no INPI') queried by process number. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'inpi_marcas_processo_resumido' by emphasizing 'completos' (complete details).
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?
The description clearly implies use when full trademark process details are needed, listing specific data areas. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the 'completos' wording provides clear context that differentiates it from the summary sibling tool.
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.