Patents

Get Patent Continuity

get_patent_continuity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the parent/child continuity (priority) chain for one patent application — every earlier application this one claims priority from (continuation, divisional, CIP, provisional, etc.) and every later application that in turn claims priority from it, each with the claim type, dates, and the parent/child's own patent number where granted. Use this to answer "what did this patent come from" or "what later patents/applications descend from this one". An application with no continuity relationships returns an empty chain on both sides — that is a real, common answer (most applications are standalone filings), not a failure.

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": {
      "number": "17248024"
    },
    "name": "get_patent_continuity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	Yes	US application number, digits only or formatted. Examples: "17248024", "16/123,456".
`_apiKey`	No	USPTO ODP API key. Get free at https://data.uspto.gov/myodp.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`parents`	Yes
`children`	Yes
`child_count`	Yes
`parent_count`	Yes
`application_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing that an empty chain on both sides is a legitimate answer, which prevents the agent from misreading a null result as an error. It stops short of mentioning API-key/auth requirements or upstream rate/coverage limits for openWorld lookups.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, then use cases, then the one behavioral caveat. No restated boilerplate and nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required; nonetheless the description names what each chain entry carries (claim type, dates, parent/child patent number where granted). Combined with the empty-result caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 'number' format examples and the _apiKey note are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specific verb and resource ('fetch the parent/child continuity (priority) chain for one patent application') and enumerates both directions of the chain with claim types (continuation, divisional, CIP, provisional). An agent can distinguish this from get_patent or get_patent_assignments purely from the description.

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 concrete user-intent framing ('what did this patent come from', 'what later patents/applications descend from this one'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not, however, name a sibling like get_patent as the alternative for basic bibliographic data, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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

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.