Cipo

Search Cipo Patents

search_cipo_patents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Canadian Patents Database (CIPO) by owner or applicant name and get back matching Canadian patents/applications — number, title, relevance. Covers every patent and application in CIPO's database, Canadian and foreign-origin alike, as long as it was filed or granted in Canada. Use "role":"applicant" to search the party that filed the application, or "role":"owner" to search the current owner of record (these can differ after an assignment). Follow up with get_patent for status, filing date and issue date on any hit.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "Shopify Inc.",
      "role": "applicant",
      "limit": 5
    },
    "name": "search_cipo_patents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Company or individual name to search for, e.g. "Shopify Inc." or "Royal Bank of Canada". Multi-word names are matched as a phrase.
`role`	No	Which party field to search: "owner" (current owner of record) or "applicant" (party that filed). Default "owner".
`limit`	No	Max results to return, 1-50. Default 10.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`source`	No
`results`	No
`total_matches`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the completeness of the index, the shape of returned fields, and the fact that applicant and owner can diverge after an assignment — a real behavioral nuance for interpreting results.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then the role decision, then the follow-up. Three sentences, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full schema, complete annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to carry scope, role semantics and next-step routing — and it does all three. An agent can pick this tool and invoke it correctly without further information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns a step up by explaining why the role choice matters — that filing party and current owner of record can differ after an assignment — which goes beyond the schema's bare definitions. Phrase matching for multi-word names and the limit range are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (search), a specific resource (Canadian Patents Database / CIPO), the exact search key (owner or applicant name), and what comes back (number, title, relevance). It also scopes coverage explicitly (Canadian and foreign-origin filings as long as filed or granted in Canada), which distinguishes it from the companion get_cipo_patent lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit routing between the two role values — applicant is the filing party, owner is the current owner of record — and names the correct follow-up tool (get_patent) for status, filing and issue dates. It stops short of stating a when-not case (e.g. that only party-name search is supported, not keyword/title/inventor search), leaving that to be inferred from 'by owner or applicant name'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Cipo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.