patents_searchSearch Lens.org patent database by free-text or Lucene query (requires Bearer token); returns up to 1000 patent records with title, applicant, filing date, and claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ||
| size | No | 1-1000 (default 25). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text or Lucene-style query. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "artificial intelligence machine learning"
+ },
+ {
+ "from": 0,
+ "query": "assignee:\"Google LLC\"",
+ "size": 50
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Patent search results from Lens.org API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds authentication requirement, return size limit (up to 1000), and specific fields returned. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, well-structured sentence conveys all essential information without any redundancy or missing critical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given presence of output schema, description adequately covers search behavior, returned fields, and authentication. Could optionally mention pagination (from/size) but schema covers it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%; description clarifies query parameter supports free-text or Lucene syntax and ties size parameter to the 1000-record limit. 'from' parameter lacks additional context but overall adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'Lens.org patent database'. It mentions returning up to 1000 records, which helps distinguish from a potential singular patent tool, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'patent'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only mentions authentication requirement ('requires Bearer token'). No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patent' or other search tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router (beta is currently identical), while bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunities. ai_visibility_check is effectively a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence, and discover_tools overlaps heavily with suggest_questions.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and descriptive, but the pattern is mixed: verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, search_within) coexist with noun-first names (patent, scholarly, entity_profile), and the Lens.org pairing of patent/patents_search vs scholarly/scholarly_search is structurally inconsistent. Subgroups like pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent, keeping the overall set readable.
At 35 tools, this exceeds the 16-25 'heavy' band and bundles at least four distinct domains: Lens.org bibliometrics, Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket trading analysis, and memory/subscription utilities. While many tools serve legitimate purposes, the set feels sprawling and several variants (e.g., the three ask_pipeworx flavors) inflate the count without adding equivalent value.
The Pipeworx/Polymarket ecosystem is thoroughly covered with routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, validation, comparison, monitoring, and memory all present. The Lens.org portion is thin (search + fetch for patents and scholarly works) but covers the core read path; minor gaps exist such as no batch/export operations and no patent-number lookup.