Skip to main content
Glama

Epo Ops

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Family

get_family
Read-onlyIdempotent

INPADOC family — every related patent publication worldwide covering the same underlying invention, which is how you find the Chinese, Japanese, US and European members of one filing. Give the publication number as printed on the document; a trailing kind code is handled for you.

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
family-informationNoFamily metadata and members

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": "INPADOC patent family — related applications worldwide",
+  "properties": {
+    "family-information": {
+      "description": "Family metadata and members",
+      "properties": {
+        "family-id": {
+          "description": "Unique family identifier",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "family-member": {
+          "description": "List of family member patents",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "application-reference": {
+                "description": "Application details for family member",
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "publication-reference": {
+                "description": "Publication details for family member",
+                "type": "object"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "priority-claim": {
+          "description": "Priority claim details",
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: a trailing kind code is handled automatically, and spaces/commas/slashes are ignored. This goes beyond the safety profile and gives the agent important input-handling expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept and purpose, followed by a concrete input instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the domain concept (INPADOC family), the use case, the input format, and a key edge case (kind code). The output schema covers return structure, so no further description is needed.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'number' parameter, including examples and normalization rules. The description's instruction to 'give the publication number as printed on the document' reinforces but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns INPADOC patent family members for a given publication number, explicitly covering 'every related patent publication worldwide' for the same invention. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_abstract, get_biblio, and get_claims by focusing on family relationships.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'which is how you find the Chinese, Japanese, US and European members of one filing' indicates the exact scenario. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention when not to use it, stopping slightly short of full guidance.

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