Skip to main content
Glama

Epo Ops

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Claims

get_claims
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full claims text of a published patent from EPO OPS. EPO's full-text collection is narrower than its bibliographic one — European (EP) and PCT (WO) publications have the broadest claims coverage, and a publication outside that collection comes back as found:false naming get_biblio as the route to its title, applicants and abstract. 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
claimsNoClaims data

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "number": "EP1234567"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "number": "EP1000000"
+  }
+]
    • 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": "Claims text and structure for a patent",
+  "properties": {
+    "claims": {
+      "description": "Claims data",
+      "properties": {
+        "claim": {
+          "oneOf": [
+            {
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            {
+              "description": "Individual claims with claim numbers and text",
+              "items": {
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            }
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations state readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond those: the collection coverage limitation, the found:false return for unsupported publications, automatic trailing kind-code handling, and the authentication requirement. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding essential context about coverage, fallback, and usage instructions. No wasteful or redundant sentences; every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, scope limitations, fallback behavior, input normalization, and authentication, providing a complete and self-sufficient usage guide for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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 provides a comprehensive description of the 'number' parameter, including examples, ignored characters, and automatic retry without kind code. The tool description repeats the same information in prose ('Give the publication number as printed...') without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Fetch the full claims text of a published patent from EPO OPS.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_biblio and get_abstract by scoping to claims text and even names get_biblio as an alternative for bibliographic data.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage context: it notes that EPO full-text coverage is narrower than bibliographic coverage, and for publications outside that coverage, the tool returns found:false and points to get_biblio. It also provides input formatting guidance and the required _apiKey, making when-to-use and prerequisites clear.

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