Patents

Get Patent

get_patent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single USPTO patent application/grant by application number (e.g., "16/123,456" or "16123456"). Returns full metadata: title, inventors, classifications, status, prosecution events. A returned record with no grant event and no grant date is not stale — it means that specific application has not yet been examined/granted; check status and grant_event rather than assuming the record is out of date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	Yes	Application number (digits only or with slashes). Examples: "16123456", "16/123,456".
`_apiKey`	No	USPTO ODP API key. Get free at https://data.uspto.gov/myodp.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Patent filing date or null
`type`	Yes	Patent type or null
`title`	Yes	Patent title
`abstract`	Yes	Patent abstract or null
`inventors`	Yes	List of inventors with details
`patent_number`	Yes	Patent number
`assignee_organization`	Yes	Assignee organization name or null

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 29, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "number": "7654321"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "number": "16123456"
+  }
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey

Added value: +{
+  "description": "USPTO ODP API key. Get free at https://data.uspto.gov/myodp.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / number / description

Previous value: -"Patent number (e.g. \"7654321\")"New value: +"Application number (digits only or with slashes). Examples: \"16123456\", \"16/123,456\"."

Changed1 schema field changedMay 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "abstract": {
+      "description": "Patent abstract or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "assignee_organization": {
+      "description": "Assignee organization name or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "date": {
+      "description": "Patent filing date or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "inventors": {
+      "description": "List of inventors with details",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "city": {
+            "description": "Inventor city or null",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "first_name": {
+            "description": "Inventor first name or null",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "last_name": {
+            "description": "Inventor last name or null",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "description": "Inventor state or null",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "patent_number": {
+      "description": "Patent number",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "Patent title",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "Patent type or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "patent_number",
+    "title",
+    "abstract",
+    "date",
+    "type",
+    "inventors",
+    "assignee_organization"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "number": "7654321"
+  }
+]
```
First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) already establish a safe read-only profilecars. The description goes further by explaining that a returned record lacking a grant event does not mean stale data and directs users to check status and grant_event. This is useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences: the first defines the operation and output, the second clarifies a likely misinterpretation. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the robust input/output schemas and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers return metadata and clarifies the no-grant-event case. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but the schema already documents the API key parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the value is an application number and gives examples, but adds no semantics beyond the schema’s own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a precise resource ('a single USPTO patent application/grant') and the key identifier (application number). It also begins with a clear example format extraction (16/123,456 vs 16123456), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling search-oriented tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The tool’s scope is clear for fetching one patent by application numberable, but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like search_patents or get_patent_assignments . The 'single' qualifier implies the distinction, and the caveat tells users how to interpret a lack of grant data, but there is no direct usage guidance or exclusion statement.

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

All Patents tools Inspect

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.