nexscope_data_zy_patent_forward_citationPatent Intelligence ZY: patent Forward Citation API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patentId | No | Patent IDs, multiples separated by English commas, the upper limit is 100, and the maximum length is 60,000 characters. | |
| patentNumber | No | Public announcement numbers, multiple ones separated by English commas, the upper limit is 100, and the maximum length is 60,000 characters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on pagination, limits, or what citation data is returned—so it earns minimal credit.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the single sentence merely repeats the tool title and conveys no actionable information.
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?
'Forward citation' is a domain-specific concept whose directionality (patents citing this one) is not explained, and there is no output schema to compensate. For an open-world patent lookup with two optional params, the description is far too thin.
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 description coverage is 100%, with patentId and patentNumber fully documented including comma separation and limits. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 only restates the title/name ('Patent Intelligence ZY: patent Forward Citation API') without a verb or explanation of what a forward citation lookup returns. It does not distinguish the tool from close siblings like nexscope_data_zy_patent_cited or nexscope_patent_cited_by.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the patent cited / cited-by siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess based on the name 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.