Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Patent Maintenance Fees

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Patent Maintenance Status

get_patent_maintenance_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a US patent's maintenance-fee history and in-force/expired status: every recorded maintenance-fee event (payments, surcharges, expiration for non-payment, reinstatement, entity-status changes) plus a computed status and a 4th/8th/12th-year fee-window breakdown (due date, grace-period end, whether paid). Give the patent number with or without commas ("10835610" or "10,835,610"). Design (D-prefixed) and plant (PP-prefixed) patents are statutorily exempt from maintenance fees and will report subject_to_maintenance_fees:false rather than a bare no-match. Sourced from USPTO's Patent Maintenance Fee Events (public domain, covers patents granted 1981-09-01 to present), refreshed from the weekly bulk file — every response carries data_as_of. Keyless. Does NOT determine full-term (20-year) expiration or any non-fee reason a patent could be invalid — this pack covers maintenance-fee lapses only; pair with the patents pack for prosecution history.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "patent_number": "10835610"
    },
    "name": "get_patent_maintenance_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patent_numberYesUS patent number, with or without commas, e.g. "10835610" or "10,835,610". Reissue numbers keep their "RE" prefix, e.g. "RE12345".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantial context: keyless access, USPTO public-domain source, grant-date coverage window (1981-09-01 to present), weekly bulk refresh, a `data_as_of` field on every response, and the statutorily-exempt D/PP behavior that prevents false negatives. That last point in particular is behavioral knowledge an agent could not infer from schema or annotations.

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?

Dense but well-ordered: capability, return payload, input format, edge cases, provenance, then scope limits. Some minor redundancy with the schema on the comma format, but no filler sentences and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the response contents (event types, computed status, fee-window breakdown with due date/grace end/paid flag) and the `subject_to_maintenance_fees` and `data_as_of` fields. Combined with source, freshness, and explicit non-coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret an empty-looking result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in place; the description's 'with or without commas' restates the schema example rather than adding new meaning. It doesn't say anything about RE/PP/D prefix handling beyond the exemption note. Baseline 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?

Specific verb and resource ('look up a US patent's maintenance-fee history and in-force/expired status'), followed by an explicit enumeration of returned content (fee events, computed status, 4th/8th/12th-year windows). It also carves out its boundary against a whole other concern (full-term expiration, prosecution history), so an agent knows exactly what class of question this answers.

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?

Explicit exclusions ('Does NOT determine full-term (20-year) expiration... pair with the `patents` pack for prosecution history') plus the D/PP exemption case tell the agent when the result will look empty without being a real miss. The one gap is that it never names the sibling `search_maintenance_fee_events`, which is the obvious raw-event alternative an agent would need to distinguish.

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

All Patent Maintenance Fees 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