Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Euipo

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Euipo Validate Goods Services

euipo_validate_goods_services
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a list of goods-and-services terms against the EUIPO's harmonised database (TMClass) — checks whether each term is a recognised ("harmonized") term, and flags invalid characters, duplicates, forbidden terms, and length problems. Use before filing to catch terms an examiner would object to. Returns per-term accepted/not-accepted status plus raw. Example: euipo_validate_goods_services({ terms: ["computer software", "C@ts and dog$"], nice_class: 9, language: "en" })

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termsYesGoods-and-services terms to validate, e.g. ["computer software", "downloadable mobile applications"].
_apiKeyNoOptional: your own EUIPO client_id:client_secret; Pipeworx supplies one if omitted.
languageNoLanguage the terms are written in, e.g. "en". Required by the upstream API; defaults to "en".
nice_classNoNice classification class the terms belong to, e.g. 9. The upstream validates terms per class.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "_apiKey": "your-euipo-client-id:your-euipo-client-secret",
-    "language": "en",
-    "nice_class": 9,
-    "terms": [
-      "computer software",
-      "downloadable mobile applications"
-    ]
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "language": "en",
+    "nice_class": 9,
+    "terms": [
+      "computer software",
+      "downloadable mobile applications"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / _apiKey / description
      Previous value: -"EUIPO OAuth credentials as \"client_id:client_secret\" from dev.euipo.europa.eu."New value: +"Optional: your own EUIPO client_id:client_secret; Pipeworx supplies one if omitted."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "terms",
-  "_apiKey"
-]New value: +[
+  "terms"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral content, which checks are run and that per-term accepted/not-accepted status is returned plus raw output, but 'plus raw' is left unexplained and no failure/rate-limit behavior is described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage trigger, return shape, followed by a compact example. Little waste, though 'plus raw' is an ambiguous trailing fragment that could be trimmed or clarified.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a summary level (per-term accepted/not-accepted status). For a read-only single-purpose validation tool with fully documented parameters, this is nearly sufficient, with only the 'raw' payload left vague.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form; the description's inline example mainly restates what the schema example shows. It adds only marginal meaning, such as the implication that nice_class affects validation outcomes, which the schema already states.

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 precise verb+resource: validate goods-and-services terms against EUIPO's TMClass harmonised database. It further specifies exactly what is checked (recognised term status, invalid characters, duplicates, forbidden terms, length problems), which makes it clearly distinguishable from the sibling euipo_search_goods_services lookup tool.

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 a concrete usage trigger: 'Use before filing to catch terms an examiner would object to.' That is a clear when-to-use, but it never explicitly names the alternative (euipo_search_goods_services) or states when this tool is not appropriate, so routing between the validate and search siblings still requires inference.

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

All Euipo toolsInspect
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.

Resources