Skip to main content
Glama

Epo Ops

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Abstract

get_abstract
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the abstract text of a published patent from EPO OPS. Give the publication number as printed on the document; a trailing kind code is handled for you. Requires _apiKey=consumer_key:consumer_secret.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesPublication number as printed on the document, e.g. "EP1234567", "CN117928705A", "US10000000". Spaces, commas and slashes are ignored, and a trailing kind code (the "A" / "A1" / "B1" suffix) is retried without it if the exact form is not indexed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
abstractNoAbstract content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / number / description
      Previous value: -"Patent number, epodoc format"New value: +"Publication number as printed on the document, e.g. \"EP1234567\", \"CN117928705A\", \"US10000000\". Spaces, commas and slashes are ignored, and a trailing kind code (the \"A\" / \"A1\" / \"B1\" suffix) is retried without it if the exact form is not indexed."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "number": "EP1234567"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Abstract text and metadata for a patent",
+  "properties": {
+    "abstract": {
+      "description": "Abstract content",
+      "properties": {
+        "p": {
+          "oneOf": [
+            {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            {
+              "description": "Abstract paragraphs",
+              "items": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            }
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires _apiKey=consumer_key:consumer_secret') and the automatic handling of kind codes. The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional context about auth and input handling is valuable. No contradictions.

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?

The description is three compact sentences: first states the core function, second gives the key usage instruction, third notes the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter fetch tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the data source, the input format, and the authentication prerequisite. With the output schema handling return values, there is no missing information from the description.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'number' with a detailed description, including examples and handling of spaces/commas and trailing kind codes. The tool description reiterates the 'as printed' instruction and kind-code handling but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'abstract text of a published patent from EPO OPS', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_biblio, get_claims, and get_family. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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?

The description provides clear context on how to use the tool: 'Give the publication number as printed on the document' and notes that a trailing kind code is handled. It also mentions the required API key. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the specificity of the purpose makes this less critical.

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

All Epo Ops toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources